May 3, 2007 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 7


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon we are very pleased to welcome thirty Level I, II and III students from Mount Pearl Senior High School.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: That school is located in that wonderful District of Waterford Valley. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Darrell Penney.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace; the hon. the Member for St. John's West; the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune; the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South; the hon. the Member for Humber Valley; and the hon. the Member for Port au Port.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to extend congratulations to Gina Colbourne, Karen Gill and the Carbonear Collegiate Choir of Carbonear, who were honoured recently with awards at the thirty-seventh Kiwanis Club of Carbonear Regional Music Festival.

Gina Colbourne, a Grade 11 student at Carbonear Collegiate, accepted the Terra Nova Shoes Senior Rose Bowl, which was the festivals top award.

Mr. Speaker, Karen Gill, a vocalist also from Carbonear, was named runner-up to the Junior Rose Bowl winner. She received the Caroline Powell Memorial Award for best performance in folk solo; the Kiwanis Music Festival Opera Award for best performance in opera solo; the Adey Memorial Award for best performance in Canadian composers vocal.

The Carbonear Collegiate Chamber Choir was awarded the Joseph P. Pike Memorial Award, the McCarthy Council Knights of Columbus Award for the best performance in school choirs sacred music, and they tied for the Kiwanis Club of Carbonear Award for best performance by a choir.

The award winners and young performers in the concert were among the approximately 2,400 young musicians and vocalists who participated in this year's Kiwanis Music Festival.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending congratulations to Gina Colbourne, Karen Gill, and the Carbonear Collegiate Chamber Choir on their performances and achievements at the recent thirty-seventh annual Kiwanis Club of Carbonear Regional Music Festival and to wish them every success in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate Rosemary Stanoev, a student at Cowan Heights Elementary School, on recently winning the right to represent the Province in La Grande Finale Internationale of the Dictée P.G.L.

The Dictée P.G.L. is the key activity of the Paul Geroid-Lajoie Foundation in Canada, but it is also held in Africa, Haiti and the United States. It is an international French dictation competition that aims to promote French around the world and it is used as an educational project for elementary school students in the French and French Immersion classes. The competition provides a wonderful opportunity for students to improve their French writing skills.

Mr. Speaker, Rosemary participated in the regional finals in the French Immersion category of this competition in March and she was selected to represent our Province in the overall finals to be held in Montreal later this month.

I ask all hon. members to join me in extending congratulations to Rosemary and in wishing her good luck in the Montreal competition. Félicitations et Bonne Chance B Montréal.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, recently I attended a volunteer appreciation banquet in Milltown-Head Bay d'Espoir. For the second year the town sponsored the event to thank community volunteers for their dedication and hard work. Milltown-Head Bay d'Espoir has a population of less than 900, with 250 volunteers in twenty-eight organizations.

One hundred-and-twenty residents from communities in the Bay d'Espoir region attended the banquet. Deputy Mayor Herb Dinghai paid special tribute to all volunteers on behalf of the town. It was interesting, as last year the youth volunteers provided entertainment. However, this year the seniors graciously took to the stage and provided some fabulous entertainment that was enjoyed by all. Throughout the evening there was accordion and guitar music, a slide show, and some very appropriate and reflective messages read by participating seniors.

Mr. Speaker, it was tremendous to see volunteers from other communities in the Bay d'Espoir region join the festivities and celebrate volunteerism. In this area, organizations such as the ambulance committee, cancer benefit group, crime prevention committee and others co-operate to serve all residents in the region.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the members of the organizing committee for planning such a remarkable event. The members include: Sue Dinghai, Boyd Pack, Clarence Kelly, Judy Kendall and Wayne Hallett.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating all volunteers in the Milltown-Head Bay d'Espoir and the entire region.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to inform my hon. colleagues about a new program in my district offered through the Salvation Army, Home with a Heart. It is a twelve-week course for single mothers, including training in the basics of homemaking, enriching family life and career development.

A class of five young women have already completed the program and, as a result, two are attending school and two are connected with the Single Parents' Association of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I extend my congratulations to these young women and look forward to more success of Home with a Heart when another session is planned for this fall.

I have had the privilege of working with Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Stanley and Major Lyndon Hale and wish to acknowledge their commitment and dedication to this worthwhile project.

I ask all hon. members to join with me in extending our appreciation to the Salvation Army for offering this program and helping those in our communities who are most vulnerable. This program complements government's commitment to poverty reduction in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to recognize a second-generation family business in my district that was just recently awarded the Best Overall Logging Contractor Award for Atlantic Canada.

Noble's Lumber Yard Limited is a logging contracting business which was first created by Calvin Noble. Calvin built the business on his own and then, after raising four sons, Grant, Gene, Glen and Graham, decided to step back and let them take over.

Mr. Speaker, the Noble boys have done an exceptional job. This was proven after they travelled to Moncton, New Brunswick to take part in the Canadian Woodlands Forum. The Canadian Woodlands Forum is made up of forest companies, paper mills, sawmills, equipment supplies and contractors from all over Eastern Canada. There were over 300 people at the convention and they all witnessed a quartet of brothers receiving their most prestigious award, Best Overall Logging Contractor of Atlantic Canada.

This is the second time in the last three years that a contracting company from Newfoundland and Labrador has taken home this top award.

Mr. Speaker, it is great to hear stories like the Nobles' that reflects overall on the contractors in Newfoundland and Labrador. Just to think that this company, which now boasts four harvesters, three forwarders, an excavator, a loader and about five tractor trailers, started as a dream with a dad who has now created a livelihood for not only four brothers but twenty additional families.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in extending congratulations to Gene, Grant, Glen and Graham Noble, and also to extend congratulations to their dad, Calvin, on the occasion of their most prestigious award.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. CORNECT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in his hon. House to congratulate the winners and nominees at the recently-held Stephen Awards banquet in Stephenville. The Citizen of the Year award went to Bob Byrnes of Stephenville, who devotes extraordinary time and effort to building and maintaining the community. Despite his busy personal and business schedule, Bob always manages his time to get involved.

Mr. Speaker, also presented was the first ever Masters Athlete of the Year award, of which Kathleen Jean was the recipient. Kathleen is a golfer, curler, dart player and hockey player. Other awards presented that night were: Matthew Alexander was named Male Athlete of the Year; Katarina Roxon won the Female Athlete of the Year award; and Stephanie O'Quinn was honoured with the Youth of the Year award.

Mr. Speaker, eighteen Certificates of Merit were also presented to individuals for their outstanding volunteer work for the community.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. members of this House to join with me in congratulating all the award winners and nominees of the Stephen Awards on their invaluable contributions to the community, their region, and the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight some of the fee reductions which pertain to my department, most notably the 10 per cent fee reduction for on-line use of some services.

My department was founded on the concept of consolidating, as far as possible and practical, licensing, permitting and inspection services within government in order to provide a single window for public access in these areas.

In the fiscal year 2005-2006, the Department of Government Services collected more than $110 million in revenue for government, and handled some 2.5 million transactions with the public. Some of these transactions include services which we provide on-line.

One of the goals we have identified in our strategic plan is to increase the number of services offered on-line, and the frequency of on-line use by our clients. In fact, improving e-government is a commitment this government has made in the Blueprint. We hope that consumers will find it more convenient to access these services at their convenience in their own homes or through other Internet access sites, and with faster results.

I am very pleased that we are now able to offer a 10 per cent on-line fee discount for some of our services at our commercial registries. This will certainly be beneficial for the many users of these registries. These include fees for certificates of incorporation under the corporations regulations, and the filing of annual reports with the Registry of Companies.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, we are offering a 10 per cent on-line discount for some services at our Motor Registration Division. This division, in particular, processes over 1.5 million transactions a year, the most common being vehicle registration renewals which are offered on-line.

In 2005-2006, only 17 per cent of all vehicle renewals were conducted via the Internet. We want to increase those numbers. Now, anyone renewing their passenger vehicle on-line will save $18. So far is seems to be a success. Between 12:02 a.m. on May 1 to 4:00 p.m. on May 2 we had 1,271 vehicle renewals registered on-line. A normal amount during this period is about 939. The 10 per cent on-line discount also applies to taxies and motorcycle registration renewals, as well as renewal fees for licensing commercial motor vehicles, some trailers and recreational trailers.

Mr. Speaker, we are aiming for an increase to 20 per cent in the first year, 25 per cent use in the second year, and 33 per cent in the third year. This will also be a benefit for anyone coming into our Motor Registration offices for services, as it should reduce wait times for other services. There will be no job reductions as a result of this initiative.

I have to say, though, that we did not reduce the overall $180 fee for vehicle renewals because the money we collect is directly used to repair our roads. The overall budget for the road improvement program this year is valued at $66.5 million, the most ever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I also want to highlight that we have removed the fee for obtaining a death certificate within one year of the date of death. This will alleviate a burden for anyone having to deal with the death of a loved one. One year after the death of an individual, certificates will cost $20, down from the current $25, as we know that most people requesting death certificates at this point are most likely doing research for family histories.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS WHALEN: We have also brought our birth and marriage certificate fees in line with the same $5 reduction.

Mr. Speaker, we have also eliminated what some have considered nuisance fees, such as the $5 fee for a written test and $2 fees for the road user guides. These are just a few examples of the fees that we have either eliminated or reduced in Budget 2007. I am very excited that we have been able to offer those savings to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her advanced copy.

Actually, when I received it I had to read it the second time because I could not believe it. I just could not believe the very crass attempt of this government to claim that they are giving the people of this Province a break. In 2004 they were giddy over there putting fees up. They were giddy from doing it. Here we are in 2007, a few short months before an election, after putting the fees up $27 million three-and-a-half years ago, now they are going to reduce them $3.4 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wow!

MR. SWEENEY: Wow! I tell you, wow!

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help put think about the seniors in this Province who do not have access to computers and the other people out there in parts of this Province who are struggling to make an existence from day to day, where they are going to get a $40 Internet fee to pay for an Internet service.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe this, to go through this and then to say there is going to be a reduction for the first year only for a death certificate. You have a deadline to get a free death certificate. After that you are going to get it at a discount. You are going to save $5.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I just cannot fathom - do you realize that this is the same government that is collecting a 15 per cent special tax on insurance, in most cases imposed by the government, that people driving the highways in this Province had imposed on them? They cannot drive a vehicle without paying this insurance tax, without having insurance.

Mr. Speaker, another group in this Province - and people from your district - antique car clubs, do not get a break. They do not have the access to the 10 per cent discount to register an antique vehicle. People who go through great expense in this Province to do up vehicles, old vehicles, to show them to the public to raise funds for charitable causes, these people are omitted as well. What difference does a car make if it is a 1999 Chev or a 1949 Chev, Mr. Speaker? Why can't they receive the same 10 per cent discount? It does not make sense.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allocated time has expired.

MR. SWEENEY: Just to conclude, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SWEENEY: Leave is denied.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy.

I will not repeat the things that my colleague from Carbonear-Harbour Grace said because I do not want to waste my time. I agree with everything that my colleague said. The thing that I want to add to that is my concern over jobs. I am not satisfied with the statement, there will be no reduction in jobs as a result of this initiative. You go around this country from one industry to another and you see the results of depending on technology and the relationship to loss of jobs. You go into a bank and you see teller stations with no tellers at them. You go to airports and you see stations with nobody at the stations, nobody serving on the front line because we are expected to use technology. I really am concerned that our government would have as a goal to do something that could potentially become a loss of jobs, and I believe it can become a loss of jobs.

I would really ask this government to temper itself with this strategic plan. What is this strategy about? Why is it so important to have people, a third of the people registering, why is it so important to have them registering on-line? There has to be a reason for that and I do not see the reason. I have a sense it is so that there will be a loss of jobs, and I have no proof that it will be otherwise. Again, the discount, 10 per cent for using it, may be an award for those who are using but it is a penalty -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MS MICHAEL: By leave, just to clue up, please.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

The discount for people using on-line becomes a penalty for the others, and that is how I see it. Like with everything else that this government puts forward, there are always two sides. Well, for me, the 10 per cent discount is a penalty.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to welcome the students from Mount Pearl Senior High. I think my wife teaches most of these students.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, all I can say to the minister -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has heard a variety of preambles, but that is the first time we have had that kind of introduction to Question Period.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Minister of Industry, it is too bad I did not teach him, he might know a little bit more today.

Mr. Speaker, when asked questions in the House of Assembly about the sale of FPI's individual units, the Minister of Fisheries seems to know nothing about it, but we do get the answers to our questions. Every time I ask a question of the minister that he does not answer, it seems like someone from FPI comes on the air the next day and clarifies something.

On Tuesday afternoon, I asked the Minister of Fisheries who was bidding on FPI's British seafood company - at that time the minister said, and I quote: At this time there is no plan to sell that division. That was his quote on Tuesday afternoon. On Wednesday morning, someone from FPI - Wednesday morning, less that twenty-four hours later - put out a release saying that they have been actively involved with a European company for the purchase of that particular asset.

I ask the minister: If you are so much on top of that file, can you tell me the company wishing to purchase the seafood company? Is there anyone, or is John Risley in any way connected with the company that is going to purchase that division?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, when I responded to the question in the House on Tuesday posed by the Leader of the Opposition, I told him the truth, as I knew it at that point in time, that there was not, to the best of my knowledge then, any agreement to sell the seafood company in Europe. I did make some other comments, I believe, about the value and the position of the Opposition when that company was purchased a year or so ago, and that is about where the answer took us.

Mr. Speaker, about FPI coming on radio and volunteering information; they do that once in a while, reluctantly most of the time, as far as I recall, but every now and then they will let us know, in a public way, what they are up to.

I can confirm that there are negotiations taking place between FPI and an European firm for the possible - note, possible - sale of the seafood company that they purchased in the United Kingdom a year or so ago. That sale, if it is to be finalized, will be subject to the laws of Newfoundland and Labrador, as is any sale to OCI or High Liner on other assets of FPI.

That is where the matter is. I understand that negotiations are, in fact, taking place, and the government is aware of that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the comments that the minister just made. Here we are watching the largest seafood company in this Province being sold off piecemeal, and the lives and the livelihood of 2,000 or more people and their families at jeopardy.

We govern FPI by an act in the Legislature, and the minister just rises and says: FPI doesn't tell me much. FPI doesn't tell me anything.

I say, Minister, you are the minister responsible; you should know!

MR. RIDEOUT: I never said that! (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation.

I remind the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I ask him to place his question and then there will be time for the government to respond.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Tuesday, the minister said that FPI purchased a British seafood company for $40 million, and he said that right now it is probably worth $80 million.

I ask the minister a simple question: How much of the $40 million in profit that FPI will show from that sale, how much of that will go into the pockets of the workers of FPI, and how much will go into the pockets of people like John Risley?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, at this point in time there has been no sale. We will be able to answer that question if and when a sale does, in fact, take place.

I indicated, as a matter of course, to the Leader of the Opposition a few days ago in the House, that the company was purchased for about $40 million a year or so ago, a number of months ago, and that is was my best guess that it has probably doubled in value now.

Mr. Speaker, if and when there is a sale - FPI, as I understand it, borrowed, I believe, somewhere around $40 million to purchase that company. If and when there is a sale, part of it will be -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Pardon?

MR. REID: You said they were going to sell it for $80 million (inaudible) worth $80 million.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask hon. members for their co-operation.

The Chair asks the hon. member asking questions to direct your questions to the Chair, and also ministers responding to direct you responses through the Chair.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader to make some concluding comments.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, what I was about to say before I was interrupted by the Leader of the Opposition is that I would expect that the amount of money that was borrowed to buy the asset in the first place would be repaid out of any sale, if there is a sale. Then, of course, what is going to happen with the disposition of any other proceeds from that is a matter that is not decided yet because, first of all, there has been no sale. There have been negotiations. It may lead to a sale, or it may not lead to a sale, but the provisions of the FPI Act will certainly be operative at all times.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is quite obvious, I think, to anybody looking at us here today, that the Minister of Fisheries is certainly not all over this file.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Minister of Fisheries praised National Sea, or High Liner, which it is sometimes known as, spoke out about the proud history that National Sea had in this Province. Let me enlighten the minister. Maybe he will go back and check out the facts on this.

In 1990, High Liner closed the plant in Burgeo and made it possible for the quotas attached to that plant to be transferred to Canso. Shortly after that, they closed the plant in St. John's. After that, they closed the plant in La Scie, and then recently they closed the plant in Arnold's Cove, pulled out of Arnold's Cove.

What kind of a track record do you think the future holds for FPI workers? What is going to happen, do you think, Mr. Speaker, to the 160 workers who work in the fish plant in Burin, or the 120 workers who work in the office on O'Leary Avenue, if High Liner lives up to that great track record that we have seen from them in the past?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, what I said in the House some time ago, and I will repeat again -

MR. REID: I will quote you tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the question. What I said in the House some time ago, and I will repeat again: High Liner has operated in this Province as a seafood company and an employer in the fishery for quite some time and have had a good record in many, many towns and communities in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, if you want to talk about what happened in this Province after the moratorium, you can talk about FPI and its closing in Trepassey. You can talk about FPI and its closing in Harbour Deep. You can talk about FPI and its closing in Twillingate. You can talk about FPI and its closing of a whole bunch of plants around this Province.

Mr. Speaker, when High Liner seafoods, along with FPI, closed a number of plants in Newfoundland and Labrador, they closed them because the resource had dried up. The resource was gone. The resource was taken away. It was not there any more. What were they supposed to process? Apples, in fish plants, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is - and everybody in Newfoundland knows this - you ask the people in La Scie how they felt about High Liner and National Sea Products as an operator and they will speak very highly of them. Ask the people in Burgeo -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is quite obvious the government is in full deflection mode today. I say to the minister, the apples I hear about these days are the ones that my friends in Burgeo are picking because National Sea closed the plant in Burgeo. Those are the apples I hear about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: My questions are for the Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker, after finally receiving Ms Joan Cleary's employment contract - through the Access to Information Act, I might add, not because I requested it from the minister here in this House in March and I had to wait for over a month to get it, and then only because we had to use the law to pry it out them - there are some interesting questions that have arisen concerning the decision to give Ms Cleary $40,000 in severance.

Clause 6.1 of that employment contract says that government can dismiss that person under that contract without notice, for cause. Government acknowledged in this House back in December, they had cause; Ms Cleary broke the Public Tender Act twice.

Under clause 6.2 in that contract it says: The corporation shall not make any payment when terminated for cause.

It is pretty clear, not a question of if, ands or buts. They shall not make any payment when the termination is there for cause.

I ask the question of the minister: How do you justify paying someone $40,000 of taxpayers' money after you fired that individual for their actions, especially when the contract clearly states that such actions and such payments are prohibited?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am constantly amused by my colleague opposite who likes to put his own spin. The facts speak differently, Mr. Speaker. I heard him on Open Line this morning talking about our failure to respond, to give him the information he requires.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS DUNDERDALE: For the record, Mr. Speaker, the member raised this issue in the House with my colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, on Wednesday, November 28. He raised it again with me the next day, on the twenty-ninth, and he did not ask for information. He raised it again in the House on December 4. At that time he asked for information. I provided that information in this House, Mr. Speaker, on December 6 and December 11, along with three news releases on this matter. So, information has not had to be pried out of this government. We have been completely open with the Opposition and with the general public.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Now, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair notes that some answers are getting progressively longer and some questions are also getting progressively longer. The Chair will revert to the Opposition House Leader, but reminds members to keep their questions short and also the answers equally short.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say again, it is quite obvious that we are into deflection mode here. I heard not a word uttered here in answer to my question about why we are wasting $40,000 of taxpayers' money. The minister uses the word amused. Well, I say the taxpayers did not get $40,000 worth of amusement out of that gaff by this government.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, every time we get information through the Access to Information Act, more serious questions arise. No wonder government is hiding the information.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs yesterday stated that a legal opinion from the Department of Justice recommended government pay Ms Cleary over $40,000 in severance, even though the government had definite cause for her dismissal.

My question, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of this Province, hard-working taxpayers of this Province, of the minister, is: In the spirit of openness, accountability and transparency, and to ensure that the people of this Province do not have to wait an additional thirty days for that information, will the minister undertake to table that legal opinion immediately?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, this issue was raised in this House on November 28. On December 7, because of the concerns that I had when the issue was raised in my own review of what had been happening at Bull Arm and the irregularities that I found, I asked Ms Cleary for her resignation, which she readily gave, co-operatively gave.

I then brought the file to the officials in my department and said: Please action this resignation in accordance with the contract with Miss Cleary and with the government policy and procedures.

They, in consultation with the Department of Justice, came to the position that Ms Cleary was eligible for $40,000 of benefits, which included severance and other benefits that had accrued to her.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just say again to the minister, a simple question, none of the bull, we do not need it: Can we have the legal opinion? That is all. Nothing hidden here. If you have, give it. Don't hide behind the Freedom of Information Act again. This thing is hot and current right now. People would like to know right now, today.

Mr. Speaker, Ms Cleary was in her position for a year when she was fired. During that time she was paid over $100,000 in salary, held not a single board meeting - not one - broke the law twice, and yet she was awarded with a $40,000 send-off gift.

I say to the minister, and my question is: Knowing there was cause for her dismissal - which you admitted in this House twice, she did it - why was this resignation scenario cooked up between the minister and Ms Cleary to ensure she received $40,000 of taxpayers' money? Why is this government continuing to use taxpayers' money to line the pockets of their political friends?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I was brought up and told not to stoop when there is nothing to pick up. I try very hard in this House not to get down in the gutter, but sometimes it is the only place you can go to have a face-to-face conversation with members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, there was a consultation with the officials of my department and the Department of Justice. I remained arm's-length from that process. There was no political interference. The officials were instructed to deal with Ms Cleary's resignation in accordance with her contract, the template, the same contract that was used by the people opposite when they were in government and hired the CEO for Bull Arm, the exact same contract.

There was no collusion and there is no moral authority on that side of the House. If they had the same standards that this government has exercised, they would have saved the people of Newfoundland tens of millions of dollars!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair asks members to be a little more cautious with the use of language and words.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again it is obvious here, when you ask some questions that they do not know the answers to, or do not want to give you the information to, they get personal.

I say to the minister, if I'm in any gutter, I know whose shoulders I'm standing on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Make no mistake about it.

Mr. Speaker, there is certainly a disconnect between the rules that apply to the Premier's friends and the rules that apply to everyone else in this Province.

I ask the minister: Are you aware of any situation in the public sector, throughout this Province or throughout this country, where a person who unilaterally awards contracts to their friends, breaks the law in doing so, is dismissed from their job for those actions, and is then rewarded with a significant monetary package? Name them.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am going to quote from an editorial in The Telegram that was written about the time that this issue was raised. No one from the Liberals was forced to resign when they were in government and the government was found in court to have broken the Public Tender Act in awarding hospital contracts improperly. No one resigned when the government was found to have breached the tendering act so thoroughly that it was a standing joke, that whenever a tendering case was brought to court, you knew the taxpayers were about to pay (inaudible) again. These people have no moral authority. We acted swiftly, we acted appropriately, and we acted fairly to protect the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The defence mode is coming on more and more. The tougher the questions get, the more defence they are into.

My next question for the minister. Let's talk once again about openness and transparency, as it seems to be an unknown phenomenon to this government.

Attached to Ms Cleary's contract is a letter from the Bull Arm Site Corporation providing a breakdown of the calculations of the $40,000 severance package paid to her. Unfortunately, the breakdown is blacked out.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. PARSONS: As this is public money, I am wondering, in your true spirit of openness and accountability, will the minister now - without, again, the need to pry it out of you with a Freedom of Information thing or resorting to privacy legislation, can you give the public of the Province the details of that, and could you explain to us why you blacked it out, maybe?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I did not black it out. We have an Access to Information policy in this Province and that is vetted through there. There is very good reason why that information cannot be released, because it gives personal information about the person who held the contract.

I am not trying to hide anything, Mr. Speaker. I have never tried to hide anything. I have been completely open, transparent and accountable around this whole issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Still no answers. Deflection again. They know about the Freedom of Information Act and they use it full tilt, I can assure you of that.

Mr. Speaker, these severance packages are completely unacceptable. Ms Cleary was dismissed with cause, yet government still made the payment. Once again, similar to the fibre optics deal, rewarding political friends with taxpayers' money. I am certain that no other individual in government, or the country, would receive a half year's salary just about, especially when the contract they worked under said they should not be paid.

I ask the minister: Is there any documentation - this is pretty straightforward again, not rocket science. My good friend Joe Chesterfield out there in TV land is going to understand this. Is there any documentation from Ms Cleary's lawyers demanding these payments be made under the contract, or was this just a gratuitous payment? Will you undertake, minister, to provide to this House, immediately, all correspondence from Ms Cleary -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PARSONS: - or her lawyers or their representatives?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader calls a point of order.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take great offence to the Speaker of this House, who is supposed to be impartial, cutting off a member during Question Period.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This Chair has interrupted on numerous occasions on both sides of the House. The allocated time had expired.

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Natural Resources.

There is no point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just say again that when this matter was brought to our attention we investigated immediately. Because of concerns that I had, I asked for Ms Cleary's resignation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as the former Justice Minister and Attorney General, he knows that there is a substantive difference between being fired and resigning. I will say something else in this case, Mr. Speaker, Ms Cleary, as I understand, is a woman of character.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having great difficulty hearing the hon. the minister. The minister has a few moments left to finish her response.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, in my knowledge and my experience, Ms Cleary is a woman of honour and who did good work at Bull Arm. Yes, there were irregularities around the Public Tender Act, and because there were concerns with regard to her judgement, I asked for her resignation. She was then dealt with appropriately.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the Chair has a job to do in protecting everybody's rights, but I gave him some serious questions here this afternoon, and we will deal with this later on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Members know that there is a process - if there is a question that members have, there is a process laid out in the Standing Orders of this House, and laid out as well in Marleau and Montpetit, laid out in Beauchesne, to handle such situations.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question this afternoon is for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

The minister and I are aware, as are other people who are affected, that a major daycare centre in the east end of St. John's will close on May 11, necessitated by unresolved regulatory issues with Eastern Health. This closure will disrupt the lives of a large group of children whose parents are discovering that there are no spaces in other centres. The government considers daycares to be private businesses and child care to be a personal responsibility of parents. Other than licensing, government takes no responsibility for ensuring that children who need child care have access to it.

My question for the minister is: When will this government recognize that child care, like primary education, needs to be a formal, publicly funded system in which government is responsible for ensuring that child care services are available to all children in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government has demonstrated, very clearly, our value that we show to child care services in this Province. Since we formed government, we have increased the number of spaces available in this Province by some 40-odd per cent. We continue, up to this day, to invest large sums of money in expanding the capacity that we have in the system. We make major investments in improving the quality of -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: - childhood educators in this Province by providing bursary programs for people to continue their education, provide opportunities where we provide bonuses for those who advance their education and are providing services to children in this Province.

I say, Mr. Speaker, this government has clearly demonstrated, by its investment in additional spaces, its investment in quality, that we do care about child care spaces in this Province, we do care about the development of children in this Province, and we continue to invest and we put our money where our mouth is, and we support the development of early childhood learning in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for his answer, but in this Budget of this year, 2007, there are no new spaces and I want to know if this government will take the lead of other provincial governments in this country, like Manitoba and Quebec, who continually, every year, are increasing the percentage of child care seats that are publicly funded?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite would recall, last year this government made a commitment to expand child care supports and services in rural Newfoundland by adding sixteen new spaces, sixteen new facilities, to be announced over the next two years. I say, Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of commitment we have made in the recent past and we continue to invest today to increase supports to children in this Province, child care spaces being one, the investment in family resource tenders being another, the investment we made this past week about what we are investing into Child, Youth and Family Services, the investments we have made in education this year.

Children are a big part of this government's agenda. Just look at this Budget. This is a -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) diabetic pumps.

MR. WISEMAN: A good example. The member opposite just raised another one, diabetic pumps.

All of these sorts of things, Mr. Speaker, reflect this government's commitment to the children in this Province, and we stand by our record on investment in children in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am requesting the minister, Mr. Speaker, to table in this House all of the new seats for child care that have been produced around this Province since last year. I would like to see a record of the new spaces that have been developed during the Budget 2006-2007.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the minister, if he wishes, has time for a brief reply.

MR. WISEMAN: Sure, Mr. Speaker.

I will be very proud, in fact, to table in this House our investment in child care services in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Any time.

As I said a moment ago, we will stand any day, toe to toe, with any government in this country and compare the investment we make in children in this Province. So I will be very proud, today, tomorrow, any time in the future, to table in this House the documentation that speaks to the record of our investment in child development in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

The Chair wishes to rule on a point of order raised on Wednesday, May 2, by the Opposition House Leader. The matter under review relates to comments made by the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development on Tuesday, May 1.

While the Speaker was not in the Chair at the time the comments were made, the Chair acknowledges that he has consulted with the House officers, the Deputy Speaker, and the Deputy Chair of Committees. The Chair has also reviewed Hansard and the videotape of the proceedings provided by the House Broadcast Centre.

While the minister did qualify his introductory remarks, it is the opinion of the Chair that the expression, "It was utterly false statements made by the Opposition House Leader, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile..." to be unparliamentary.

The Speaker reminds members, as noted in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms 6th Edition, page 143, "Words may not be used hypothetically or conditionally, if they are plainly intended to convey a direct imputation."

I ask the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development to withdraw all the words and expressions that are deemed to be unparliamentary.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I respect the Speaker's ruling and I withdraw my statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order.

MR. PARSONS: I appreciate the answer given here by the minister. I think he has done the right thing, and I commend him for it.

I am rising here on a new point of order, the point of order being what just transpired in Question Period.

We have an understanding in this House during Question Period, and I think I probably interjected for the first time ever, since I have been in this House, during Question Period; because the rule is, and I am well aware of it, that you do not normally interject during Question Period, but I think, and my point of order is, that the process is not being followed here today.

Let me explain now, my position. I am not challenging the Chair. I am making my point. The point here is that we have thirty minutes for Question Period, and Question Period today started at 1:51 p.m., and we had thirty minutes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: At 1:51 p.m. it started, and twice this Chair, for the first time since I have been Opposition House Leader - the first time, mind you, the first time that this Speaker has been in the Chair and the first time since I have been here as Opposition House Leader - that I ever witnessed the Chair twice cut off the speaker like that. Never saw it before in this House. I think it was pretty obvious, to the people out there who watched this, what happened here today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is entirely the option of the Chair -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is entirely the option of the Chair, when the Chair believes that he has heard a point of order sufficiently.

In this particular case I am not rising on that particular matter, except to remind all members that in this House and in the parliamentary practice of the Westminister model that we have to be always cognizant, and I quote from page 523 of Marleau and Montpetit. It reads as follows, and I quote, "Reflections must not be cast in debate on the conduct of the Speaker or other presiding officers. It is unacceptable to question the integrity and impartiality of a presiding officer and if such comments are made, the Speaker will interrupt the Member and may request that the remarks be withdrawn.... Reflections on the character or actions of the Speaker or other presiding officers have been ruled to be breaches of privilege."

In this particular matter, I do believe there is a forum. If the hon. the member has a difficulty, there is a forum. There are two forums. One, the member is welcome to discuss the matter with me in my private office; or, the member has the option to have it dealt with on the floor of the House, but only through way of a substantive motion.

MR. PARSONS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A new point of order has been raised.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: A new point of order, Mr. Speaker.

It seems quite obvious that you are well-prepared today to respond to my points of order.

My question I raise again is not as to the integrity of the Chair. I am questioning the timing of the Speaker, and what we were doing in Question Period.

I was in the middle of a question, and had the question half done, when you cut me off. What I am saying to you has nothing to do with the integrity of the Chair or to cast aspersions upon the Chair. I am saying you did not read the clock - as simple as that. I had time left and you did not allow me the time, the same as you are cutting me off again here now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair attempts to be absolutely fair. In this particular case, well over a minute had expired before the interruption. We are going to be fair in this House. We have to be fair on both sides of the House. We cannot have the Speaker who, day after day, will interrupt ministers when they go on too long. Today, on four separate occasions I do believe, ministers were cut off in their presentation. The same thing applies to questions. If questions go on too long, if the preambles are too long, then, we must be fair. If we are fair to one side, we are fair to the other side. We try to keep it to a minute. In this particular case, a minute had expired.

The Chair is satisfied that we try to be fair. Sometimes it is not a perfect science, but we do have to try to always be fair to both sides. The same rules apply to both sides.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on a point of order, please.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a brief point of order. It is a matter again that occurred in Question Period, which I just made a note of and left - as we customarily do - until the end of Question Period for it to be dealt with.

The Opposition House Leader, in, I guess, the preamble of a question to my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources - Mr. Speaker, the hon. Opposition House Leader, in asking questions about the resignation of Ms Cleary, used the words cooked up. In other words, he made the statement that the minister cooked up reasons for -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, this language infers, of course, motives. It is imputing motives to the minister. It is imputing motives to her officials, because the member clearly used the words cooked up as a way to explain the resignation of Ms Cleary and then to justify the payment of certain sums of money to her.

Mr. Speaker, I would submit, that is clearly a breach of the rules of this House. It is a breach of every parliamentary rule, many parliamentary rules, that can come to mind. I believe it has been ruled on before, that you cannot impute motives to members and to ministers when they are asking questions in that way. You cannot use that kind of language in a preamble to a question. I would ask that Your Honour, when you have an opportunity, review the circumstances of the remark, review what was said and take the appropriate action.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the point of order. First and foremost, I readily admit that I used the words cooked up. Let there be no misunderstanding there. I admit that I used the words cooked up. Let is also be understood that my whole questions in Question Period - you talk about determining whether I am imputing any improper motives to the minister. Let it also be understood that the context today of my questioning, what I did get in, was directed totally, absolutely to determine what the motivations of this minister were. That is exactly why every question I asked here today was: give us the information. Can I have, for example, the correspondence from her lawyer, which I wanted to ask but never got to ask? Can I get all of that correspondence? That is exactly why I used the words cooked up. We do not know if there is anything improper, nasty, unacceptable that occurred here or not until we get the information. Now, if I am not allowed to ask for the information and I am not allowed to use the words as to why I am asking for it, to determine if something is cooked up, what else are you allowed to ask in this House, I say?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing preventing the Opposition House Leader, or any other member of the Opposition for that matter, in asking a question. There are rules though in terms of what language can be used in asking that question, and that is all I am saying here. When you use words like cooked up or words that the minister - who is now leaving the House - had to withdraw the other day, they are very similar words, very similar language. They are imputing motives and that is not permitted under the rules of the House. The member knows it, I know that, but nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, it is not permitted and I ask that it be dealt with.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to belabour the point here. If the parties opposite have a problem with my use of the words cooked up, I have no problem with that, if it is unparliamentary. I do not have an issue with that.

For example, the word coverup is deemed by Beauchesne to be acceptable. Now, if cooked up is not but coverup is, or contrived is, which it certainly is, I have no problem if the minister wants me to change my wording, withdraw cooked up and put in coverup. I mean, that is fine.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will review Hansard, as well as the video-taped presentation, and come back on next Monday with a ruling.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motions.

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, Order 5, the resolution regarding the appointment of a Chief Electoral Officer; Your Honour has to call it, I guess.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 5 has been called by the Government House Leader. The Chair will dispense with the WHEREASes. The motion before the House is:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Mr. Paul Reynolds be appointed Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Members' Interests.

The rules of debate will follow the standard rules as per Standing Order 46 for this type of resolution.

The Chair recognizes the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that, on behalf of the government, I am very pleased to stand here today and to move the resolution appointing Mr. Reynolds to the position of Chief Electoral Officer and Commission of Members' Interests.

Mr. Speaker, the only - not only, I suppose - criticism that I have heard surface on this appointment is the fact that Mr. Reynolds had the good sense in his lifetime to be associated with a political party. Now, it happened to be the political party of which those of us on this side of the House are associated, and that, I think, is imminently good sense as well, but that really does not matter.

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before the Member of the Bay of Islands got on in his usual fashion and started to bully and interrupt - and from his seat, too, when he is not even allowed to be recognized - but as I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that is the only criticism that I have heard in this appointment. Mr. Reynolds is a gentleman of sterling character.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Reynolds has made a tremendous contribution to the public life of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Reynolds has been a sterling member of the business community in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Reynolds has served his community and the people in the community where he lived, in the Province in general, in many, many volunteer capacities. Mr. Reynolds has done exemplary, as an individual serving his community in many, many ways, in many volunteer ways.

MR. SWEENEY: A fine fellow.

MR. RIDEOUT: A fine fellow, as the hon. Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace said. Yes, indeed, he is a fine fellow. I have had the pleasure of knowing that gentleman for a long, long period of time, and I concur with the sentiment that he is a fine fellow.

Therefore, if he is such a fine fellow, should this fine fellow and his great contributions to the public life of Newfoundland and Labrador not be an overriding consideration if the government wished to nominate him and appoint him to this particular position? I say yes, Mr. Speaker, and I say yes for a number of reasons.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: I have to keep an eye on what is going on in the House, too, when I hear certain statements being made, because I have a responsibility as Government House Leader, and I am trying to introduce this resolution too.

Anyway, as I was trying to focus on here, this gentleman, I believe, is exemplarily qualified to hold the position of Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Members' Interests. This gentleman has proven himself to be competent. He has proven himself to be a good community person. He has proven himself to be trustworthy. He has proven himself to be sensible and sound and unbiased whenever he has to make decisions that affect the public interest.

I have confidence, and for that reason I have no hesitation. I have confidence, as Government House Leader, and one member of this government, that this member - even though he was associated with a political party - is the type of man, the type of individual, that the Opposition talked about when they supported - or some of them supported - the appointment of his predecessor. When some of the Opposition supported the appointment of Mr. Furey, many of them made the point that they believed that Mr. Furey was the type of individual who would park his political bias at the door when he took over the job. I believe that Mr. Reynolds is, too, that kind of individual. He had a political bias - of course he did - and he makes no apology for it, and I make no apology for it on his behalf.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, he was a supporter of mine, co-chaired the campaign for me when I ran for the leadership of this party, and did a marvelous job, a successful job in terms of winning the leadership. I could not have wished to have worked with a team better than the team that was put together by that hon. gentleman.

I support his nomination for this process, but I do not think that had anything to do with it. Those who say that, because you had an association with politics in this Province, whether you were an elected member of the Legislature and a Cabinet minister, like the former person who served in that position, or whether you helped your political party in some way, those who say that makes you unfit to hold this office, I disagree with them, Mr. Speaker. I disagree with them.

AN HON. MEMBER: I disagree with you.

MR. RIDEOUT: That is the member's right, to disagree with me, and I am sure he will articulate it eloquently when he gets to his feet. I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the member, if he disagrees with me, will be able to articulate why he disagrees with me. That is what debate is about in this House.

I disagree with him. I happen to believe, Mr. Speaker, that no member, that no person in our society, ought to be dismissed for consideration for a position, or discriminated for consideration for a position, because they happen to have had the audacity to have supported a political party at some time in their lives.

Mr. Speaker, I remember the former Liberal Premier of this Province, the person who is now the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal, Mr. Chief Justice Wells. I remember him when I was in Opposition, Opposition Leader, in this very Chamber. Many, many times I remember him, when we were talking about patronage appointments, talking about the political colour of an individual that the then Premier was appointing to a board, or to chair some corporation or whatever, I remember him saying - and Hansard will bear me out in this, Mr. Speaker - time and time and time again: I will not discriminate against a person because they were a Liberal. I will not refuse to appoint a person to a position - Mr. Speaker, he would say - because they were a Liberal, because they were associated with the Liberal Party. I refuse to do that. I will consider their qualifications on their merits. If I believe they are qualified, and if they are a Liberal - he would say - so be it, all the better. That makes it better, from my perspective, but I will not discriminate against them and refuse to appoint them because they had the audacity at some point in their life to be associated with the political party that is now the government.

To those, Mr. Speaker, who try to conjure up all kinds of bogeymen or women, whatever the appropriately correct political phrase is those days -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Bogeyperson, is it? When I was growing up they were bogeymen. Anyway, whatever they are, for those who try to conjure up all of those negative things, Mr. Speaker, in this appointment, for those who say they are somehow concerned because the fate of the political system is in the hands of a person associated with a political party, who once had an affiliation with a political party, for those who have climbed that hill and expressed that concern, Mr. Speaker, I say I am no more uncomfortable - yeah, I am just as comfortable, Mr. Speaker - I am just as comfortable with having the fate of the political system in the hands of this individual, who was associated with our political party, as I am having the fate of the judicial system lie in the hands of judges, some of whom served other political parties in this Chamber.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I am just as content, Mr. Speaker, to have my political fate and the fate of our democracy rest in the hands of that capable gentleman as I am to have my judicial fate rest in the hands of some judge who may have served in this House or the House of Commons. I see no difference.

Mr. Speaker, there is no difference. If a person is going to park their political bias at the door once they finish one aspect of their life and their career, whether it is in public service or not, and move on to the next, if they are going to do that, Mr. Speaker, there is no problem. If they are going to do that, there is absolutely no problem, Mr. Speaker, and that is why many people in the Opposition, when we debated the appointment of Mr. Furey, made that same point, Mr. Speaker, that I am making here today. If it was true and valid then, as I say it was, then I believe it is true and valid here today in this appointment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: The Opposition House Leader, for example, Mr. Speaker, was so enthused about the appointment of Mr. Furey that he said the following. He said: It is the Premier's prerogative to nominate a person of his and his Cabinet's choice.

It is so, Mr. Speaker, and we have done it twice now in a year. We nominated a person who was a known follower, supporter, minister in a Liberal government, and we saw the resolution through and we saw the person appointed, and I do not believe there is anybody who can say that person did not serve with distinction and serve the people of Newfoundland and Labrador well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: The Opposition House Leader, Mr. Speaker, went on to say in supporting the appointment of Mr. Furey, to say the following: To me, he said, politics are irrelevant. Not my words. It is the words of the Opposition House Leader. To me, he said, politics are irrelevant. To me, if he is appointed for this job, which he no doubt will be, he parks his politics at the door. The prophetic words, Mr. Speaker, of the Opposition House Leader. When he goes into work he is the Chief Electoral Officer and is the Commissioner of our interests and he parks his politics at the door.

Mr. Speaker, that is the nub, that is the crunch for me in this appointment. We have submitted the nomination of a person that we believe very strongly in. We believe that Mr. Reynolds will do an admirable job. We believe he will be unbiased. We know he will be unbiased. We know he will park any political affiliation that he had at the door, just as the Opposition House Leader was confident that the former incumbent, the former nominee for that position would do, and in fact did do. There was never any allegation from anybody, despite those who said at the time that it should not go to a person associated with a political party. There was never any - anywhere in this Province that I know - hint that Mr. Furey in performing his duties, did anything other than park his politics at the door on the day of his appointment.

So, Mr. Speaker, many people in the Opposition then, two or three of them, did not support it, for whatever reason and they said it, and they thought they were good reasons. They were certainly good reasons in their view, but the majority of members in the House, including members of the Opposition, thought that the appointment of Mr. Furey made sense. They believed that Mr. Furey would be above partisan politics, and I submit that he was.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this man, that we have nominated today to fill this position, will be above partisan politics, too. I know he will. I know he will leave his political past behind him, as great as it was, and he was a great person at it, did an admirable job, but I know he will leave it behind him and do the work which the job demands as Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Members' Interests. I know he will do it with distinction, Mr. Speaker, because that is his reputation. He has had that reputation in every job that he has held, in the private sector, in the volunteer sector and in the public sector. He has the reputation of doing the job well, of performing well, and performing in a non-bias and non-partisan way.

Mr. Speaker, we are pleased, as a government, to bring forward this nomination. We are absolutely delighted that a person of Mr. Reynolds' character and calibre would submit himself, allow his name to be submitted, knowing that there are going to be those who are going to take a different view. That is fair game. That is fair game, Mr. Speaker, knowing there are going to be those who will take a different view.

Ms Jones is expressing some view now, Mr. Speaker.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: That is all right. The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair reminds the hon. the Government House Leader that references to members should be by their title or by their district, and I ask him to respect the protocols in the House.

MR. RIDEOUT: I do respect it, Your Honour, and thank you for reminding me. If she had been in her seat I would have referred to - I was just looking at the names of the members from the Opposition who voted in support of the resolution appointing Mr. Furey and I was making note that the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair was for his appointment and, in fact, voted for it.

So, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of members on this side of the House, and I would hope some members on the other side of the House too, just as there were some members on the other side of the House who supported Mr. Furey, some did not, but I would hope that there will be members on both sides of the House who will see the appointment of this fine individual for what it is, and that is a person who is quite capable of doing the job and doing it in a non-bias and non-partisan manner.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues, we support this resolution and we will be voting in favour of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition Leader.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think I have an hour, if I so desire, but I do not think I will be speaking for an hour on this motion this afternoon.

The motion is to appoint Mr. Paul Reynolds as the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Members' Interests for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I listened to the minister, the Deputy Premier, with great interest as he presented the motion and called upon us to support it.

First of all, I would like to welcome Mr. Reynolds to the gallery here today, to the Speaker's gallery, as I did his predecessor, Mr. Furey. I have known Mr. Reynolds for quite some time, not really well, but I know the individual. I know from whence he comes. I think he was born and raised in Riverhead, Harbour Grace, not too far from my hometown in Carbonear.

Mr. Speaker, what I am about to say today has nothing to do with Mr. Reynolds's character, nothing whatsoever. It has to do with the position of the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Members' Interests and what I feel, or who I feel should be filling this position.

The minister talked today about appointments made to our judiciary, politicians being appointed to be judges, to be magistrates and what not, and that has been our tradition. I think that democracy, and you can correct me if I am wrong, is based on tradition. The rules and regulations in this House of Assembly are based on traditions and precedents. For the most part, that is what governs this House of Assembly, traditions and precedents.

Mr. Speaker, this position has been traditionally held by a senior civil servant, an individual who has worked his way up through the ranks as a civil servant, through the civil service. As we all know, you do not work your way up through the ranks of the civil service if you are in any way, or perceived to be in any way, politically connected. In fact, if you check the traditions and the history of our Province, what we will find, since Confederation, is that once the bureaucrat crosses the line and becomes politically involved, that person is asked to vacate his position. In other words, he is fired, or she is fired, because tradition says that person in the civil service should not be politically motivated, or politically aligned with a certain party, simply because the bureaucracy in our Province could not work if that were the case.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the reason I am talking about tradition and precedents is because I have done a little bit of research on who has occupied these positions since Confederation. It is my understanding, and I do not know for exactly sure, maybe I can be corrected later on, but I do believe that from 1949 or 1950 when the first Chief Electoral Officer was appointed, it was an individual who was a magistrate. That individual, I think, occupied that position up until 1963, and then I think that individual was replaced by another magistrate, and again followed by another magistrate up until 1973.

Mr. Speaker, I would assume that a magistrate, once he became a magistrate, was not politically aligned, or politically motivated. The position just does not hold that. It would not be in the magistrate's best interest, or anyone in the Province, to have a magistrate who was politically motivated after he became, or after he was put into that position.

Mr. Speaker, I think it was in 1973, when the late Frank Moores took power, that precedent changed and there was a well-known Tory who was appointed to the position, but I do believe from that point on, after that, the position, after Mr. Moores' successor came along and into the Deputy Premier today, when he was the Premier, even though it was for a short period of time, I do not think that you changed the Electoral Officer at that time. I do not think that anyone else did thereon after.

What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that position, from 1949 until 1973, was held by a magistrate, and for a brief period of time in the 1970s it was occupied by a person who was politically aligned. From that point on, I think the position was held by a senior civil servant, an individual who worked his way up through the ranks of the civil service and occupied that position of honour.

The only time that I am aware of, in recent history, that changed was in 2005. When was Mr. Furey appointed, in 2005 or 2006?

AN HON. MEMBER: In 2006.

MR. REID: In 2006, Mr. Furey was appointed.

I stood in the House of Assembly at that time - and I say to Mr. Reynolds, don't feel bad if I do not support your nomination this afternoon, because I did stand in the same spot and face Mr. Furey, who happened to be a previous colleague of mine, who sat in the same seat that you are sitting in today, and I did not support his nomination as well. This has nothing to do with personalities or character. This has to do with what I believe should be a position that is above politics. That is the same reason that I gave Mr. Furey when he sat in your seat, I say to Mr. Reynolds. I voted against Mr. Furey at the time because he was politically aligned.

The minister, or the Deputy Premier, might say there is no difference between a Chief Electoral Officer and a judge. He made reference to Clyde Wells, who went on to be the Chief Justice. I think, in terms like that, Mr. Speaker, if you go before the justice system, I do not think that someone is going to convict you of a crime because of your political stripe, or be lenient on you because of your political stripe. What I am saying is, because there has always been a tradition in this Province of appointing judges, for the most part, on their political allegiance, I do not have a problem with it because it has been a tradition, but the tradition has never been that you appoint someone to the position of Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Members' Interests based on their political allegiance. That is the point that I am trying to make today, Mr. Speaker.

That was not the only reason, I say to Mr. Reynolds, that I voted against Chuck Furey. There were others, and I will get into those as I go on.

Mr. Speaker, the position of Chief Electoral Officer, the individual who will oversee all elections, general elections and by-elections in this Province, holds a very important job. I think that individual should be politically impartial. Just by the nature of the job itself, that individual should be politically impartial. Not only should he be, Mr. Speaker, politically impartial, but he should be perceived to be politically impartial. There has to be a perception that the individual is politically impartial.

Unfortunately, I do not feel that the individual who is being presented today to fill that position, just like his predecessor, Mr. Furey, could be perceived to be politically impartial. I do not think either one of them could be perceived to be politically impartial, simply by the nature of their resumes and what they did prior to taking this position. Mr. Furey was a politician, obviously; everyone in the Province knew it. Mr. Reynolds, up until the Premier appointed him, or put his name forward for appointment, said himself in the paper that he was still a member of the PC Association of -

AN HON. MEMBER: Virginia Park.

MR. REID: - Virginia Park Tory Party.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Virginia Park, I say to my hon. colleague.

That shows me that the individual, by his own words - besides that, he was a former President of the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, and by his own resume which he forwarded to us, was gracious enough to forward to us today, he admitted that he was the President of the PC Party and was still an active member - a director, I do believe - of the PC Party of Virginia Waters, up until the Premier put his name forward.

That, to me, Mr. Speaker, shows that he is not politically impartial, nor could he ever be hoped to be perceived to be politically impartial. Whether or not the individual would lean one way or the other once put into that position, I do not know. Let's hope that he would not, but that still does not remedy the fact for me, Mr. Speaker, that this position should never be given to any person who is so closely connected to a political party, because there are circumstances, Mr. Speaker - for example, whomever occupies that position will be responsible for the general election in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in the fall of this year, October 9 to be exact. There are forty-eight districts that we just realigned, most of them, so the individual who is chairing that will be responsible for realigning the boundaries of those districts. He will be responsible for determining where ballot boxes are going to be located throughout these forty-eight new districts. He will be responsible for hiring the individuals who will work on those polling boxes in the forty-eight districts.

I will give you an example. My district, for example, had, I think, fifty-one polling booths in the last election. It is my understanding that fifty-one people in my district will be employed by the Chief Electoral Officer, and whomever the Chief Electoral Officer is going to be will be responsible for hiring those individuals. We all know in this Province, I say to those opposite, we all know - my wife said it to me the other night - it's not what you know, unfortunately, in this Province; it's who you know. I have a concern about that.

I also have concerns, Mr. Speaker, about what happened in Humber Valley in a by-election a few weeks ago, or a couple of months ago, when the Deputy Premier of this Province got out and called into question some of the activities that occurred during that by-election, and certainly cast aspersions that some of the people who worked in the polling booths in that district should not have been doing it because they were closely aligned with the Liberal candidate.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Deputy Premier said that.

MR. REID: The Deputy Premier made those comments on television, that he had concerns because a relative - a relative - of the newly elected Member for Humber Valley worked in a polling station. The same individual is standing today and making a case that, while there was something not right about what happened in Humber Valley, we could elect today in the House of Assembly the individual who is going to control all of the elections, all of the by-elections and every polling booth in the Province, while he is politically aligned, and there should be no problem with that.

Does anyone here see the irony or the paradox of that? Does anyone see it? The Deputy Premier stands and says what he said about the lady in Humber Valley a few weeks ago, or a month-and-a-half ago, but today sees nothing wrong with the ex-President of the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador - director, up until last week, of the Virginia Waters Tory Association - and no problem. Therein lies the problem. Therein lies the problem.

A bigger problem I have is the comment that the Deputy Premier made himself when he talked about the individual - we are talking about here today, Mr. Reynolds - when the Deputy Premier stood in the House here, no more than fifteen minutes ago, and said that he had the good sense to be associated with the Tory Party. Just imagine. Therein lies the problem, when the Deputy Premier stands in the House of Assembly and talks about the incoming Chief Electoral Officer as being or as having the good sense to have been aligned with the Tory Party. Now, if anybody does not see the politics involved in this then they are sadly mistaken. Again, it has nothing to do with the character. It has to do with the position. There has to be impartiality, and the perception of impartiality in that position.

Mr. Speaker, that individual will also be the Commissioner of Members' Interests. For those of you who are watching who do not know what that means, I will tell you. Every year, every single member in the House of Assembly has to forward to the Chief Electoral Officer a list - actually, it is a booklet that you have to complete. I do not know if the new members opposite, who were just elected, had an opportunity to fill that out. It is a very comprehensive document in which I have to, and everyone in this House of Assembly has to, put down and itemize every single thing that we own. Not only what I own, but what my spouse owns. That has to be itemized in the book. Along with that, you have to put down not only what you own, you also have to - in another section of that book - put down every single cent that you owe and who you owe it to; every single cent, right down to the credit card. I have to tell the Commissioner of Members' Interests, the Chief Electoral Officer, how much my wife owes on her credit card and how much I owe on mine. We have to say what taxes we are paying on our properties, everything.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I have to go and root around and do some thinking, if I am leaving a thing out because if I leave something out and the Commissioner of Members' Interests, the Chief Electoral Officer finds out about it, then I could be in a conflict and I am hiding something. God forbid, I say to the minister, if the general population ever got a whiff that Gerry Reid was hiding something. The reason that the Commissioner of Members' Interests and the Chief Electoral Officer wants to know that - and he wants to know it especially for the Premier and the Cabinet Ministers. Do you know the reason he needs to know that? Because he wants to be sure that the individuals are not in a conflict with the companies and the institutions that they deal with on a daily basis.

For example, Mr. Speaker, if - and I don't - I own shares in FPI and I was the Minister of Fisheries for this Province, then the Commissioner of Members' Interests would like to know that. I think it was set up originally because they did not want to see you get into a conflict or they did not trust you. I think when it was originally set up they did not trust the hon. members in the House of Assembly. I guess some people out there will say: We don't today either. They did not want me, for example, if I owned shares in FPI when I was the Minister of Fisheries, to increase the value of those shares by something that I might do in the Department of Fisheries. There is a right to do that, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier, for example, has - and he said it himself - very extensive holdings and investments in companies, not only in this Province but throughout North America, and who knows, around the world. The individual who is going to occupy this position today will know how much every single person in this House of Assembly owes and owns.

No disrespect for Mr. Reynolds, because I said the same thing about Chuck Furey, I had concerns about that. When you are aligned or had been aligned with a political party, sometimes you have to wonder - not saying it happened or would ever happen, but when you are sitting back or lying back in the nighttime you have to sometimes wonder: Is this information safe or will it be used against me in the House of Assembly?

Just this afternoon the minister of industry, trade and rural renewal, or whatever the department is called today, held up a paper and said: I will get you all next week with the information that is in here. I will have all your resignations next week. It frightens me to think that when you cross the line between the Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Members' Interests with politics, some crazy things could happen in this Province.

So, I said enough about that part of it, because I told Mr. Reynolds that I was also going to address other areas when it comes to why I will not be voting for this motion this afternoon, just like Mr. Furey. Mr. Furey entered this House of Assembly when he was being recommended for appointment by the Premier, I looked at Mr. Furey and I realized - I said, Mr. Furey has a pension from the provincial government. He was a Cabinet minister.

We have people leaving this Province on a daily basis. We saw 9,000 individuals line up on the Kenmount Road in November, we saw 5,000 visit the Glacier last weekend, all looking for employment out of this Province. Some of our youngest and brightest, some of our middle-aged and brightest, and all of those in between, looking for employment. This position pays in excess of $100,000 I do believe, and someone can correct me if I am wrong. We have lots of people in this Province who would certainly do with $100,000. No disrespect for Mr. Reynolds but he, like Mr. Furey, I understand is retired, receiving a pension. I do believe. I am not 100 per cent certain but I would assume. That is another reason that I think the position should be occupied by somebody else.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on but I think I have made my points. I do not think, for example, that - and he did not have to do it. I don't think Mr. Reynolds, when he came out in the paper last week and said he was proud to have been associated with the Tory Party - I know that is your right, just as much as my right. I just thought that it showed a lack of judgement when you are asking to be appointed to be the Chief Electoral Officer for this Province, to be out talking about your politics.

I think, as well, Mr. Speaker, that if anybody read an editorial in The Telegram - I do not know if it was Saturday past or the Saturday before, when we were talking about - the editorial was about conflict of interest. I think the last sentence in the paragraph said: If the Premier of this Province could not see a conflict in appointing Mr. Reynolds to this position, how is Mr. Reynolds going to recognize a conflict when he gets the position?

Mr. Speaker, again, I say I know Mr. Reynolds, and it is no disrespect for him as an individual. It has nothing whatsoever to do with his character, just like it had nothing to do with Chuck Furey's character, but because this position should be impartial, and perceived to be impartial, the fact that it has always been, or for most of the time - 99 per cent or 98 per cent of the time since Confederation this position has been filled by a civil servant who has worked his or her way up through the ranks of the civil service, who was proven to be impartial, occupied the position. I do not think that we should be voting today to fill this position with an individual who had been so closely aligned with the Tory Party of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to stand and support this motion for the election of Paul Reynolds as the Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Members' Interests.

Mr. Speaker, when I look at a position that a person holds, I look at that person and I will put it in my mind: Can that person do the job? Without hesitation, this person can do the job. Can he do it independent of all of government? Yes, he can. Can he put aside his bias? Yes, he can. He is a man of impeccable character, Mr. Speaker, impeccable character.

I have known Mr. Reynolds for quite a long time and I have seen him socially in terms of on the golf course, maybe, or at a function, or whatever the case may be, and everyone, Mr. Speaker, everyone, spoke very highly of Paul Reynolds. They spoke of what a fine gentleman he is, what a nice man he is, what a trusting man he is, and what a person he could be in high authority.

Mr. Speaker, there is no question about his character, no question at all. I look at him as a man who was a community leader, a volunteer, and a person who served his people well. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Reynolds was Mayor of Wedgewood Park, if people remember that, and he was mayor for eight years, two terms. He also served on council there.

Mr. Speaker, when a person is in the position of authority that he held, as Mayor of Wedgewood Park at the time, let me tell you, throughout the municipal world in Newfoundland and Labrador, throughout the municipal sector of which I was a part, he was held in very, very high esteem. When Paul Reynolds would get up to speak at federation meetings, people would listen. People said: That is a man who knows what he wants, knows where he is going, and has vision. Mr. Speaker, he was respected second to none by everyone in the municipal world.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the mayor of a community, no matter what community, these people sit there in office and are respected very well by the community, the people they represent. I had that privilege of representing the City of Mount Pearl for two terms and, let me tell you, people look up to you, people trust you, people expect you to do a good job, and with that they will elect you. They did the same thing with Mr. Reynolds, time after time.

I am sure if Wedgewood Park were here today, which I think it should have been - that is another story - then I would say Mr. Reynolds could have still been the Mayor of Wedgewood Park to this day, as we speak, because of the respect which he held in his community. He has certainly, in his volunteer sector - because I am not sure if the Mayor of Wedgewood Park was paid any stipend at the time. I am not sure he was. I do not think he was.

When you look at that, and look, by the nod of the Speaker, as your experience in the municipal world, saying no, I take that as being truthful because I think you know as much about the municipal world as I do, and probably more. So, when you look at a person who stayed in a volunteer position serving the people of his community without bellyaching, without complaining, without making a fuss, but doing it for the goodness of his community, how could a person not have respect for that person? How could you, when you look at the high esteem he was held in, in his community?

Mr. Speaker, I also knew Mr. Reynolds through his business sector. I cannot remember every business he was in, but I can remember his last one, I think, he retired from. Each and every one of the people I know in that business had high, high respect for him. He was looked on as a man of authority, looked upon as a man with trust, and looked upon as a man with respect.

Mr. Speaker, I have no problems with this gentleman coming in as the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Members' Interests. I have no problem with that. I look at the position as, what would I expect? Similarly, I had no problem with Chuck Furey there because I did separate the politics from that. I look at the position, saying, in my own mind: Can that person hold that office and do it service, do justice to that office? Mr. Speaker, this person can.

Mr. Furey came here. He was a Liberal, and everyone knew that. I looked at it and said: Well - I put the politics aside - can he serve that office with respect and dignity? I answered that question with a very affirmative yes. No different from the gentleman we are putting forth here today.

Look at the office, look at what he has to handle, and ask yourself, before you vote on this: Can that person do justice to this office? The answer to that is very simple. The hon. House Leader over there may smile at it, but that man has a lot of dignity, a lot respect, a lot of trust, in not only the community in which he serves but in the Avalon area and the Province as a whole.

So, when you make the decision -

MR. PARSONS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been called by the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: I want to make a point here. The comment that the Member for Mount Pearl just uttered across here is as if I had done something in a derogatory manner by smiling with respect to Mr. Reynolds.

I want to make it quite clear that the first time I ever met, that I recall, in my life, meeting Mr. Reynolds, was this morning. In fact, we had a pretty frank and open discussion in my office this morning, because I asked to meet with him. So, any smiling that I did here today was directly to the eyes and face of Mr. Reynolds, who sits in this gallery, and it certainly was not done with any negative reasons whatsoever. I would like this House to record it.

I certainly do not need the Member for Mount Pearl to try to cast any negative aspersions upon this member. If I have something to say about Mr. Reynolds, I will say it in due course when I get my opportunity in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. DENINE: Now, that is as sanctimonious as you can get.

Anyhow, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to go there. I made the comments and I will stand by them.

Mr. Speaker, again, go back and see what this person has to do. The Opposition mentioned that the election is coming up. Well, go back to the experience Mr. Reynolds has in the municipal world. He has gone through many elections in the municipal world and also, too, in the City of St, John's, I might add, so he is quite familiar with what happens during elections.

By the way, this is not somewhere where Mr. Reynolds has to go out and develop a policy, develop the act and develop the legislation for this. This is all in place. Mr. Reynolds has the initiative, the intelligence and the ability to interpret the legislation and put it into place in proper perspective. He has that, and he can do that, and he can do it well. So do not be disillusioned in terms of saying, well, he is going to go into this office and put forth legislation to this House of Assembly so he can be prepared for the election in October. Uh-uh, that is in place as we speak. That man has to -

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

MR. DENINE: The hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands is continuously disrupting again, as usual. He has been a nuisance in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is clearly unparliamentary to refer to another hon. member using the words just used by the Member for Mount Pearl and I ask them to withdraw the words immediately.

MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. member and ask him to continue his debate.

MR. DENINE: I hope this is not off my time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate it.

Mr. Speaker, look at the election as ready. The hon. Member for Bay of Islands said everything is not in place. Right now, they have people hired on to do the enumeration process to make sure every voter is registered. The districts have changed. So, once all of that is put in the computer, all you have to do is take it, enter the data, bring it out and here is your voter's list.

Now, the thing about people who are going to be involved with the election coming in October. I had people who were going to work for me, and all of a sudden they put their name down to be a returning officer. They came to me and said: Dave, I can't do anymore work for you. Fine. I never talked to them or spoke to them after. They stayed totally out of it, and I expect all people who are going to be hired on for an electoral office to do the same thing, because it states it in the rules very clearly. So, Mr. Speaker, there is no problem here. Mr. Reynolds has the ability, is trustworthy, is a fine gentleman and he can read the legislation and put it in place and put it into proper perspective.

Now, the conflict of interest. Mr. Speaker, every year I had to fill out one when I came into this House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, I did not realize how little I had until I filled out one of those. I said to myself: well, why would they want mine? I do not have that much to worry about. My wife and I share a house. We have some small investments. We have a couple of cars. I said: Why would they want to know that? I said, all they had to do was come to my address and look at it. That is what I had. Then again, Mr. Speaker, the idea of this - and I do not mean to laugh at it in terms that it is not serious, because everyone should make it known to what they are involved with. I am just saying to myself that mine is so small that it is not worth worrying about. Some members here may have other interests that I do not know about, and I really do not care.

Mr. Speaker, I will fill out the form next year - God forbid, if everything goes all right and the electoral of Mount Pearl re-elects me again. Then, if I am here in this position, I will fill out that form and I will send it in to Mr. Reynolds. He will be, as far as I am concerned, the Chief Electoral Officer and the person of Conflict of Interest. I have no hesitation, one bit, in sending that in to him; not one bit. Will I worry about whether he tells someone? No, nothing. Did I worry about Chuck Furey telling him about that? No, I did not.

Mr. Speaker, you have to look at it. The Opposition, they are going to say what they have to say, but from my perspective, I look at the gentleman here as a man of integrity, honesty and has the ability to do the job. There is no question in my mind that he can do it and do a job well done. Will the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador be well served? I can tell you, without hesitation, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador will be well served. Will the integrity of the Chief Electoral Office be held up in the esteem that it is today? I say, yes it will. I say yes it will because of the person that we have nominated here today.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much, and I look forward to the vote.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in opposition to the motion, but before speaking to it, I do want to welcome Mr. Reynolds to the House. I want you to understand Mr. Reynolds, I have never met you before, we do not know each other, but anything that I have to say has nothing to do with you as a person. Everything that I will be speaking of are principles that I, and my Party, believe in. So I ask you not to take anything personally. Of course, it is on record that when we were dealing with a similar issue - when the House was dealing with a similar issue with Mr. Chuck Furey, our Party took the position that I am taking today. As I said, that is based on principles.

I do not know why this government has to, in different ways, pride itself on doing things differently from everybody else. Why is it that a tradition and a practice that has gone on both in this Province and goes on right across the country cannot be carried on? We are not talking about something that is unusual. We are not talking about something that is strange. When we talk about conflict of interest - and this is where I am going to start because I think we are dealing with conflict of interest. Conflict of interest is a common phrase. We all know what conflict of interest means because conflict of interest is part of contracts, conflict of interest is part of agreements, conflict of interest is part of our society. We use it all the time. Why the government cannot see the conflict of interest and why it thinks that it can ignore conflict of interest, really, really confuses me. I cannot understand it. To me it is just common sense.

Why even do this to your friend? If Mr. Reynolds is a friend of yours, why even put him in this embarrassing position where this discussion has to happen? Because the discussion does have to happen. The discussion is happening outside of this House and the discussion is happening in this House because we are dealing with something that everybody understands. We heard today in the House, even our local paper understands it. This is not confusion, it is very, very simple.

When our public sector is ruled by conflict of interest, why can't we see that we should be ruled by conflict of interest rules? I am used to people saying to me, you know people who are in positions with our government, even people who are in positions not in government per se, like even if you are in a management position at the College of the North Atlantic, you cannot publicly come out for a party; even in management at the College of the North Atlantic, you cannot do that. Even that can be seen as a potential conflict of interest.

So, if it is not okay for somebody in the College of the North Atlantic in management to be aligned with a party publicly, why do we think that it is strange for us who are saying it, strange for us to be pointing out, that having somebody who is so openly aligned with the party - it is fine to be aligned with a party. I have been aligned with a party all my life, but I have never asked - I should not put it that way. I have never had to deal with being put in the position of conflict of interest. I have never done that. So, why do it now, my colleagues across the House? I cannot understand it. It does not make any sense to me. Besides the flying in the face of common practice, you are putting us, again, in an embarrassing position when it comes to the public.

This House has had quite a bit of public criticism over the last months, going back to last June. People see the House of Assembly being run by its own rules. You know, we just had a really good thing happen with the Internal Economy Committee making its own decision to now hold its meetings publicly. So we are starting to take steps to break through that notion that we are in this enclave here and we think that we are different from everybody else, that we do not have to live by the same rules as anybody else, that we do not have to govern ourselves in the same way as anybody else.

The confusion for me, as a new member of the House, and as a new member in the political system, the way I am now in it, is that it seems to me that we should be the shining paragons. We should be the ones who are showing the public how to do things, not going against the things that society says are the way to do it. We should be showing, not only do we agree with the practices in society but we carried it on as far as we can carry it on, that we are the paragons.

What we are doing here by voting to have somebody who is politically aligned to be in this position of tremendous responsibility in our political system, we are saying to the general public: We have our own rules; we can do what we want in the House of Assembly. The general rules do not apply to us, do not mean a thing. We can do whatever we want in here.

That is the message that we are sending to the general public with this decision. It really bothers me. It really upsets me. I feel like I am going to be going around, when this motion gets passed - because I have no doubt that the government is going to pass its own motion - I am going to find myself going around apologizing for looking like we consider ourselves different than everybody else.

We have to stop talking about things on a personal level. There are principles at play, and principles are so important, so this has nothing to do with the person of Mr. Reynolds. I have no doubt, from those who know him, that everything that has been said about him is correct. I did not even live in the Province, I don't think, when he was mayor, so I have no doubt he was a wonderful mayor, but that is irrelevant. It is completely and totally irrelevant, because we are setting a precedent that can be very, very problematic.

We just cannot be doing things on this personal level. So I am not impressed when my colleague from across the room says all these wonderful personal things about Mr. Reynolds. I am sure they are true, and I am sure that if he and I were to meet each other we would be able to talk to each other and have a good time together; I have no doubt about that. It is irrelevant; it does not mean a thing.

Here we are dealing with a decision for an extremely important position in our system, and I am not saying that by putting Mr. Reynolds in it we are compromising the position. I am saying that there will be the perception of conflict of interest. We should know by now in the public sphere that perception is reality. That is the reality, that perception is the reality.

As much as I hate that, as much as I would like to think that people can be open and people will not go by perceptions, people do go by perception. That is reality. So, being perceived as being in a conflict of interest position, being perceived as being in a position where one could potentially do something for one's own good or for one's friends own good, just being perceived that way makes it a reality. Unfortunately, that is true, so I have no choice but to stand here and to say that I vote against this motion.

I read Hansard when my predecessor did the same thing with Mr. Chuck Furey, and my predecessor and Mr. Chuck Furey were friends. My predecessor turned to Mr. Chuck Furey and said to him: Now, Chuck, you know, take this all right; but, buddy, I can't vote for this motion, and I can't do it because of the principle of conflict of interest - a principle that we find in law, a principle that we find in every sphere in our society.

You know I would love to think that the government would be convinced by the arguments that some of us are putting forth. I would love to think that you would say: Oh, we have made a mistake.

That would be wonderful, if you did that. Not that you made a mistake in judging Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Reynolds' character, but that you made a mistake in going against something that is so prevalent in our society and doing something that no other area in the country, no other provinces, are doing. It makes so much sense to have somebody who has been inside of the system, the governmental system, the bureaucracy, in this position. It makes so much sense to have somebody who has had to have been in positions where they are interest-free coming into this position. It is essential. As I have said, that seems absolutely logically to me.

I am not going to stand up for the sake of standing. I do not want to beat this to death. I have said what I have had to say very clearly, I think.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for my time today and, as I said, I will have to vote against this motion.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure today to rise in support of this motion and of Mr. Reynolds moving into the position of Chief Electoral Officer.

I have to be honest, Mr. Speaker, I did not know Mr. Reynolds personally. I have heard certain things about him. Therefore, before I decided to get up and speak, I wanted to check as to Mr. Reynolds' credentials, and so on and so forth.

A very important characteristic that I like to judge people on - certainly, there are two things. Qualifications is always a consideration when you are moving into a position of authority, but also I find it good to get impressions. Therefore, as I sought out certain things about Mr. Reynolds, I spoke to people who knew him. I guess, Mr. Speaker, when you speak to people one-on-one sometimes they are very much more apt to speak to you honestly than if they are in a larger group setting.

Some of the things that I heard about him: In his role as a volunteer, he was spoken of very highly as someone who gives energy and brings vibrancy to the positions that he got into. Those people I spoke to, spoke very highly of him in that regard. Equally, I heard about his role in municipal politics. I think the words that I heard would be dignity in which he carried out that role. Likewise, some of his business associates spoke very highly of him in that regard.

If I were to couple those kinds of comments that I heard with the credentials that this gentleman carries with him, I am then able to make a decision.

Mr. Speaker, I tell you, Sir, that I have no - absolutely no - problem in supporting this motion and supporting Mr. Reynolds who, as people have indicated, is here in gallery, supporting moving him into this role, one that I think he will carry out very efficiently.

What is the type of individual we want in these positions? Well, we certainly want people who are efficient, who are organized, who are effective. This gives them the capacity to carry out the role that they are to take on, and I think that Mr. Reynolds is such a character.

Now, as some people have alluded to, as the Deputy Premier alluded to, I must credit him with the good sense of aligning himself with the Progressive Conservatives. I do not think he can be faulted for that, but I also think that he is such an individual that, once he enters into this role, then he will diligently carry out his job in that, and the politics gets parted along the way.

If we were to look at positions of authority, and consider individuals who have political alliances, and that we would or would not appoint somebody based on those grounds, then I think we are doing ourselves an injustice. In fact, it automatically discredits some people from moving into positions where they would be more than apt to fit. If you look at it from that perspective, it is a form of discrimination.

Again, as the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi alluded to, I do want to beat this to death and I do not want to repeat things that have been said by individuals, but if we look at the former gentleman who held the position, Mr. Furey, when I voted to support his moving into that position, I certainly did not consider his political stripe.

Likewise, you looked at the credentials and the impressions that were given to you about Mr. Furey and you made a decision based on those types of things. As a result, Mr. Furey was placed into that position.

As the Deputy Premier said, members opposite voted to support Mr. Furey. Some opted not to, for the reasons that they gave here today as to why they are not supporting Mr. Reynolds, and that is their prerogative; but, from where I sit, I certainly do not think that someone should be denied going into a position because of their political stripe.

The Member for Signal Hill said that perception is reality. Well, in cases, that may very well be, but I do not think that in all instances we should decide against a particular individual because of the perceptions of some people. People will make their own determinations, they will form their own judgements, and there may be a perception, but the bottom line for me is: Can the person going into the position do the job? Do they have the credentials? Does their past history support them moving into that position? Again, just as it was for Mr. Furey, I say the same of Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. Furey, in his role, this side supported him. I do not think anybody on this side felt that Mr. Furey was not apt to carry out his job because he had an affiliation with the Liberal Party. If that were the case, we would be making judgements about the Public Service that, you know, certain people would not be placed in positions because of this. Then we look at where the democratic process is.

So, you know, should Mr. Reynolds not be supported because of this, because of some past role? Should I or an individual out there be denied a position because of some past association with a party or a particular group out in society? I certainly would not agree with that and support that. To me, it is a form of discrimination and therefore it is not grounds for denying someone to move into a particular position.

Again, as I have already said, members on both sides have supported individuals such as Mr. Furey. Likewise, as has already been mentioned, there will be some who will not support and others who will.

Mr. Speaker, I can stand here and continue to rehash this, but I conclude with what I started out by saying: My decision is based on impressions that I get from people who know individuals such as Mr. Reynolds. It is also based on the qualifications and the credentials that an individual brings to a particular job. In the case of Mr. Reynolds, I think he will carry out his duty diligently, effectively, and we will see in the end that this gentleman will do a good job.

I cannot allow my decision to be based on perceptions. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting this motion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take this opportunity to stand and speak on the recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer here in the House. It is with great pride that I will be able to do it.

I hear already the people across the way because I guess they know that I will not be voting for this recommendation off the front, so I guess I am being heckled right away because I do not agree with the government. I can tell the members opposite that I am a man who was elected by the people of the Bay of Islands and I am going to speak and say what I think is right on behalf of the people of the Province, not because I am just told to do something. You can heckle as much as you like; I will not be changing my vote here today.

I heard the Deputy Premier here today talking about what a great - his words were, how glad he was that he was involved, he was smart enough to be involved, with the PC Party. That is fine. The man admitted that publicly. I just find it so ironic that, when the election for Humber Valley took place and it was down to seven or eight votes, here is the Deputy Premier of this Province complaining because the sister of the candidate who was elected, who was the returning officer, I say, for at least twenty years, complaining how it may be perceived as conflict, and how a ballot box was put into the member's home for the last twenty or twenty-five years, that he happened to own - the Member for Terra Nova said they were put in his home also, or around in seniors' homes across the Province, whoever wants them at the time - and how he said: Well, we should not have let the ballot box be moved around. There may have been something done wrong there, to give two seniors a chance to vote, so we are going to have it looked into - all because of politics. Yet, we are supposed to vote for a man here now that the Deputy Premier stands up and says: Oh, he had the wisdom to be part of the PC Party. I just find it a bit ironic, actually.

Mr. Paul Reynolds, I never met the man in my life. The first time I saw him was here today. I never met the man before in my life. I would not know him - except for today - if walked into him somewhere along the street. I would not have a clue who he was.

I know one of my colleagues brought it up earlier about all of the youth leaving the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, all of the people looking for a job. Mr. Reynolds, I understand, is retired now from a position earlier, collecting a pension, or saved up for his own pension, however it works. Here we are again, another $100,000 or $125,000-a-year job. Here are a lot of young people over there, job fairs, 9,000 or 10,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Here we are, once again, another person who is already on a pension, getting a second pay out from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Fundamentally, I think that is wrong. There are enough youth in this Province - that is just a side thing on it, Mr. Speaker.

The position that we have here, the Chief Electoral Officer, not only is the person supposed to be non-partisan, he is supposed to be perceived as non-partisan. There are no ands, ifs, or buts about that. He is supposed to be perceived as non-partisan. I do not care - and I voted against Chuck Furey too, by the way, for the same reason. This is not just something because it happens to be a PC or it happens to be somebody associated with the PC Party for a long while. Fundamentally, I think it is wrong. Fundamentally, not only do you have to be non-partisan, you have to be perceived to be non-partisan. I do not think that this appointment will pass that test, that it will be perceived as non-partisan.

I know, for myself personally, you have to have the confidence in the person to do the duties. Can Mr. Reynolds do the duties? I have no idea. History will tell that. I have no idea if Mr. Reynolds can do the job or not do the job. If you speak to the people who know the man, they will say: yes, he is well qualified; yes, he can do the job; yes, he can manage the job. No problem. I do not know the man. I would not know of his qualifications. I have some that he sent in today, but I would not know if the man could do the job. Do I have the confidence, sometimes - and I will go back and speak to this a little while later, about the confidence of my situation in the last election. Did I have confidence that it was ran properly? No. After when the election was contested - I can go right from the Speaker, right on down, that I lost confidence in the whole system at that time, and I make no bones about it.

Does the man have the ability to do the job? I do not know. If you ask the people who dealt with him, they would say, yes, he does, but the perception is - and it has to be an element of perception that this position is non-partisan and I just do not feel that it is.

We heard people speaking earlier about conflict of interest. Sure, it goes to Mr. Reynolds. I have not filed mine yet, by the way. I am going to write Mr. Reynolds and ask him what guarantees is he going to give me that none of my information is going to be put out in the public. Will he do it? I doubt it, but I just want the guarantees to ensure it. If I go back over the times that I had with my past experiences with the system, I think I deserve that privilege to ensure that all my information will be kept confidential. Do I make any accusations that it will not be? No, I do not. I just want to ensure that all the safeguards are in place to ensure that anything that I put down in confidence to the Chief Electoral Officer will remain with the Chief Electoral Officer.

We see his past involvement with the PC Party. I have a list of it here now, volunteers and president. One of the important things that I noticed in the little letter that he wrote, is that he resigned - and this is telling to me, and this has no reflection on the person. It is just the way it happened. He resigned from Virginia Waters association, terminated April 24. He was appointed April 23. That is when the new Electoral Officer, Commissioner of Members' Interests, that is when the announcement went out. So when this person here was actually put forth in a nomination, he was still the PC executive.

How the Deputy Premier can go on public TV and say that the perception is wrong for having two seniors to vote - the perception is that there may have been something happen in the home, or there may have been something happen because his sister was a returning officer for twenty-five, thirty years. Yet, you can stand up for a person on the PC association, and publicly admitting that he has been involved for the last twenty, twenty-five, thirty years - and that is his right. We have no problem with that. He can pick and choose whichever party he decides. But, how the Deputy Premier can say: Oh, that is all right, because the man will not show his partisanship in the Chief Electoral Officer position. In questioning a deputy returning officer, questioning two senior citizens being voted, questioning a ballot box in a home that has been there for twenty, twenty-five years, but it is all right to appoint someone who has even co-campaigned or co-chaired when he ran for Premier. The logic of it just escapes me, how that can be done in such a matter.

I heard statements, and Mr. Reynolds can speak to the media or speak to the people himself, of his statements on the golf course and how he was disappointed he never got any PC appointments. I mean, I do not know if he said it or he did not say it. He can defend himself but there are people who told me you did, and how he was upset that he never got a political appointment. That is up to him to defend, but people have told me that. That disturbs me when people say that to me. That disturbs me again. I mean, that is his right if he wants to say it. It is up to his own personal views if he should say that or not say it, or if he did not say it, but I was told you did say it. It is up to you if you did or did not. I mean, that is fine. Those are the comments that are getting back to me since this came up.

This is why I will be voting against it, because the perception is more than reality at times. You have to be perceived as non-partisan, you have to be. I just do not feel like putting this person in this position. This is a position - Third World countries. Anywhere else in this world, anywhere in this world, one of the most important things is elections. Giving people the right to vote, giving people the right to go out and exercise their democratic right, however they want to vote and however they want to do, to do it. When we get people to go down and oversee elections, one of the things that they always say, you have to - not only has it to be fair, it has to be perceived fair.

We seen a lot of situations where Canadians even went over to Third World countries, went over in Europe to oversee elections and you always hear the statement that it has to be perceived fair - has to be perceived. I just do not think appointing a person in this position, which is going to be running the whole elections in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, gathering all of the public information, publicly admitting - and the Deputy Premier standing up with the wisdom and good grace of supporting this party, how the perception is that he is going to be non-partisan. Will he? I do not know. History will tell that. History will tell it, I do not know. I honestly do not know. I honestly do not know if he will or he won't. History will show.

I say to the Member for Mount Pearl, if you want something to say, stand up again. Stand up. You just got up and said the man is going to follow the legislation, he is not going to put nothing forth. You do not even know, sir. You do not even know. The Member for Mount Pearl do not know that the Chief Electoral Officer makes recommendations to the IEC to changes in the Elections Act. You do not even know it. You got up and said that he just follows the legislation. You do not even know, boy. Before you make statements that you do not know about, at least go check with your leader, at least he knows. At least the Government House Leader knows the procedure. So, before you get up -

MR. DENINE: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: And if you want to just sit down and keep on sniping because I disagree with you, keep sniping, I do not mind. You just keep sniping. You just keep sniping.

Mr. Speaker, with the non-partisan view, it will always be on the back of my mind - and I have always tried to speak the way it is. It will always be in the back of my mind, if there was the decision fifty-fifty which way would you lean, yes or no. I don't know. As a member in this House, it would always be in the back of my mind, that if something comes to the Chief Electoral Officer, okay, he has closer ties to the PC Party. His friends could call him up quicker. I don't know if that will happen, but in my mind, the perception to me is that it will happen. I don't know. Again, I am not casting any doubt on the person's character, I don't even know the man, but in the back of my mind I will have those thoughts any time a situation comes up in the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I bring you back to the election of 2003 when Mike Monaghan - and I will just tell you why I have my perception about politics and appointments and other things - when the election was over and I won by 147 votes or whatever, he went out and contested the election and named me as the respondent; not the government, not the Chief Electoral Officer, not the House, but named me personally. I said it before publicly and I will say it again, Mike Monaghan shook my hand out in front of the courthouse and he said: Eddie - this is the first or second day we ended up in court - I didn't want to do this, the Premier wanted me to do this. That is what Mike Monaghan said to me: Here is what happened. The Premier wanted me to do this here. I didn't want to do it.

Take a guess what Mike Monaghan is at today, after they appointed him as Vice-Chair of the Newfoundland Liquor Corp. Take a guess. He is a judge now. When he went through the process of becoming a judge, guess what? He didn't even make it to the highly recommended. They took him off the list. He never even made it to the highly recommended. That is the political appointments that are made, and then you wonder why I have doubts about anybody who is perceived to be non-partisan.

Take a guess who was one of the people who went around with him. John Sweetland. He went around and got all the affidavits signed and the affidavits never even reached the light of day. John Sweetland is Vice-Chairman of the Labour Relations Board right now, and what a nice appointment. I wonder if it was anything to do - because John Sweetland went around and got all the affidavits signed to bring it to court. I wonder. Then people wonder why I perceive the reality of the political appointments.

Kimberley Burrage, another one who went around and got all these affidavits signed during the election, never blinked an eye, got them all, took them and put them in the court. Never reached the court, by the way, when I finally got there. What does she know? She is on the Worker's Compensation Appeal Board.

Is this all about appointments in elections? Sure it is. Mr. Speaker, I will even bring you into question here, or into the conversation. Mr. Speaker, you and the IEC went out and got a legal opinion, cost about $9,000 for a legal opinion, to say: Should Eddie Joyce get so much of the money, $12,800 that he paid, back? - after being told it was all done. Flew me in twice, by the way, flew me in twice, to go out and meet with the IEC out here. Flew me in twice. Outside here, waiting for five hours, they said: No, Ed, there is no need; we are going to pay it. You should never have been named in the first place.

The IEC told me that personally. The IEC went out and got a legal opinion because, oh, no, the Premier did not want to pay me any money. They went out and got a legal opinion, Gus Lilly did the legal opinion, $7,800 or $7,900, I think it was, or $9,000, whatever the amount was, and recommended that I should get a certain amount, a portion. Guess what? This is not perception; this is reality. The IEC said no - after the legal opinion from Gus Lilly - and the money was not the big issue. The money was just a thought, I am saying, that what happened here was right. Paid $12,800, every person that was involved got an appointment, and the IEC, who said we are going to get a legal opinion, go with whatever the legal opinion says, and guess what? They even went against the legal opinion that was given them. The portion that the legal opinion said I should get paid back was written....

Now, who was part of the IEC? I think, Mr. Speaker, you were the Chair of the IEC and voted against it. The Member for Bonavista South voted against it. The Deputy Premier voted against it. I think the Member for Gander voted against it. Then, you wonder why I think about perception of a person as the Chief Electoral Officer.

Even the former Chief Electoral Officer was calling me every day before Christmas. Every day. He gave me his home personal phone number to call him over Christmas. The taxpayers of the Province spent about $18,000, also, to defend it, to defend that case in Corner Brook. Every person who was involved with that case in Corner Brook got a nice political plum because of their affiliation with the PC Party, every one of them. Guess what? I had to go drag women and men down during that Christmas in 2003, drag them up to my office so they could sign affidavits that they did not break the law. That is what I was doing. I had to go and get them, arrange a time, so they had to come up to write affidavits saying that what they did was not wrong, and you wonder why I am concerned about a political appointment in such a sensitive office. Do you wonder why?

Every person who was involved with that got a political appointment because they were loyal to their master, and the main master was the Premier, who shook my hand and said - that is the Premier. You wonder why, then, I think the political appointment in this sensitive position should not go ahead. Nothing on his character, nothing on his ability, but I just know the sensitivity of this position.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, and I will say it again, I am not sure I am 100 per cent - and history will say - if the job will be done properly, I do not know, but my past experiences say, and my past dealings with this House of Assembly, with the IEC, with the Chief Electoral Officer, that it should be a person who, even if it is not a conflict, there should not even be a perceived conflict.

I voted against the last one for the same reason, perceived conflict. I refused to do it. This here is one of the positions that, in all democracy, there should be a perception that everything is done above board. I am not saying that everything will not be done above board, but I can assure you in my mind the perception will always be there. It will always be there, that things will not be there....

I just look at a few people, and I guess I am allowed to because it is all about political appointments. I am not saying this person who is in the gallery here today is going to be out doing this. You take Robert Lundrigan, the Chief Review Commissioner, Workplace Health and Safety Commission, here is an appointment by the Premier. He is out actively recruiting PC candidates right now, out actively campaigning, paid by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, out actively recruiting PC candidates. Now, out actively doing it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR JOYCE: Robert Lundrigan, your past president, out actively....

Len Simms, another one, a nice guy. Len Simms is a nice guy. He is a pretty good guy. He is over at Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation. Here is Len Simms now out in Grand Falls organizing for the election out there.

Don't go shaking your head. If you don't know again - well, you didn't know about the returning officer, what his work was, anyway, I say to the member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MR. JOYCE: Leave, to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted to make some concluding comments.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR JOYCE: No? Okay.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has received conflicting advice from the government side. The Chair asks the Acting House Leader if leave has been granted.

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible) Mr. Speaker, go ahead.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been withdrawn, I assume.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I am going to take as long as some people to debate this, or have my opinions on it, but I got a little bit confused here during the last discourse because I did not know if we were debating Mr. Reynolds' appointment or if it was some historical things that happened a few years ago, but I have myself straightened out now; I know what it is.

I stand on my feet today, Mr. Speaker, to endorse the appointment of Mr. Paul Reynolds as Chief Electoral Officer for this Province and also as the Commissioner of Members' Interests. All I have heard is concern over political affiliations, about political appointments in all of this. Over the years, I have heard and I witnessed similar things happen in the past. I remember back in the District of Kilbride where a member of the Liberal Party ran against someone on the PC Party who ended up with a fine political appointment after. I will not name any names. I think all of you know who I am talking about.

Political appointments are not new, I can assure you that, but I stand today, Mr. Speaker, to endorse the appointment of Mr. Paul Reynolds. I have known Paul Reynolds for fourteen to fifteen years, mainly on a professional level. I have spent no time golfing or barbequing with Paul Reynolds. I never, ever, did that. I met Paul Reynolds when I first came to city council. He had been the Mayor of Wedgewood Park for years before that. As a matter of fact, he did such a good job as the mayor, and he had such a good council, that Wedgewood Park was almost a model for how to run a town, how a town should be run, in Newfoundland.

In 1992, Wedgewood Park was amalgamated, as was the Goulds, with St. John's. Paul Reynolds was elected to represent -

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you ever meet him on the convention floor?

MR. DINN: Never.

Paul Reynold was elected the Ward councillor representing Wedgewood Park, I was elected to represent the Ward which was Ward 6 at the time, which was the Goulds. Myself and Paul Reynolds sat side by side in council for about two years and during that time -

MR. BYRNE: It was a hard time for him, wasn't it?

MR. DINN: It was a hard time, yes.

At the time, I got to know Paul Reynolds as a great worker. He represented his people well. He was really respected. As a matter of fact, to give you an example of how well he was respected, Andy Wells thought he was a good guy. That will tell you.

I do not know much about Paul's profession, his work character or anything like that, because I do know that he worked as a manager at Ultramar for years. I had some little dealings with him on a personal level, but other than that I do not know much about what he did.

We talk about political affiliations! Where in this Province will you find somebody without political affiliations? Go around and knock on doors and say: Okay, now what is your political affiliation? Most people in Newfoundland have political affiliations. We are foolish to deny that they do. We are only fooling ourselves.

How far do you want to go with this idea of political affiliations? If you talk about it in this position here, are we going to also make it a condition of employment for all government jobs? What is fair for one should be fair for all. Most the civil servants who are here, even though they might not express it publicly, have political affiliations.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DINN: They do so. You are crazy to think they do not.

Now, I think Paul Reynolds has the qualifications and the character to do this job. The Opposition mentioned elections. If there is anybody I would trust in this Province to run an election, it is Paul Reynolds. Paul Reynolds is very qualified. He has been dedicated to the jobs that he has had for years. He is also very honest. I will tell you how honest he is. He revealed publicly in the paper what his affiliations were. He works hard. He is very coolheaded, much more coolheaded that a lot of us. I have seen Paul Reynolds in situations where he kept his cool a lot better than I would, and some you guys too; very coolheaded. He is able to be impartial which is a qualification very necessary for this job. Also, to me he is very trustworthy. If there is anybody qualified to do this job I think it is Paul Reynolds. The Premier, we know, has a right to make an appointment, and to me, if he was to choose anybody to do this job he picked the right person.

We assumed and expected Chuck Furey to leave or park his political affiliation at the door when he became the Electoral Officer for Newfoundland. I am 100 per cent sure that Paul Reynolds will do the same. Again, I strongly endorse him, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to have a few words on the motion that we are debating in the House of Assembly today. Mr. Speaker, that motion is to appoint a new Chief Electoral Officer for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

For those people, Mr. Speaker, who do not realize what the duties and responsibilities of a Chief Electoral Officer are, I would like to outline it for just a moment. This is a very integral position in terms of how we operate as elected members in Newfoundland and Labrador. It has tremendous bearing on the openness and transparency of democracy as we know it in this Province. Mr. Speaker, the person who occupies this office must do so, not only independently of the government or political parties but must do so in a very non-partisan way.

Mr. Speaker, each of us, as elected members, is at the mercy of this one individual in terms of defining conflict within our positions that we hold in this Legislature as elected members, and they also, Mr. Speaker, define what the rules and regulations are around elections, around personal monetary values that we may have in terms of making those declarations to that office for review. All of those things, Mr. Speaker, are not only highly confidential, but they also can affect each and every one of us individually in terms of what interpretations are made or what rulings are made.

Mr. Speaker, the Chief Electoral Officer in this Province will every year, on an annual basis, evaluate all of the personal finances of each individual member. For example, I have to make a declaration as one member. I have to declare what my balances are, what my savings are, what my investments are, what my business investments are, and present financial statements from my business. I have to present also the financial statements of my husband's businesses, of his investments, any mortgages we may have, any loans we may have, any credit cards we may hold and any balances we may have on those credit cards.

Mr. Speaker, that is very privileged and private information; every privileged and very private. You need to have a sense of security to know that kind of information is not going to be bantered in the political arena, it is not going to be used by political parties at election time, and it is not going to be used to the advantage of other members in terms of playing partisan politics in this Province. It is very personal, very private, very confidential information, as it should be and remain in that perspective. Each member should have confidence that, that is how it should be not only reported but also how it should be interpreted and how it should be governed as to the act that is in place.

Now, that is just one aspect of it, Mr. Speaker. One aspect of it is the declaration, and not just of me but of my spouse as well who has, in my opinion - I have never agreed with the declaration of spousal investments or financial situations. I am the person elected here, not my husband. I have never ever agreed with that, but in due course I have followed the rules throughout the term that I have been here. That is just one aspect of it, Mr. Speaker.

There are other aspects as well, and I would like to talk about a couple of those. One of the things in particular has to do with the elections, in terms of how elections are conducted, how they are set up, and where ballot boxes are placed within a particular provincial riding, the people who are appointed as returning officers and as poll clerks and other duties, remuneration officers and so on, other duties and responsibilities that have to be carried out at election time. It is the Chief Electoral Officer solely who makes those decisions.

Mr. Speaker, when the election comes and there are ballot boxes that have to placed in certain communities within a district, you need to have some comfort that any representation you make to the Chief Electoral Office is going to be taken and looked at in a fair, open and transparent process, and that the member, your competition, who might be a member of the Conservative Party, is going to get a fair hearing with the Chief Electoral Office and you are. That has to be a level of comfort, I think, for each member here. You have to have some comfort in that.

You know, what bothers me about all of this is that it is hard to have comfort when the individual is not only one whom you do not know on a personal or professional basis in your life, does not have a reputation of being non-partisan, or an independent authority with regard to certain aspects of jobs and positions that they have held, and it makes it difficult to have that same sense of comfort, I say to hon. members. Those are two very important duties and responsibilities of a Chief Electoral Officer in this Province.

Having outlined that part of it, I would like to talk a little bit to what the resolution is asking today. The resolution is asking quite specifically that this House of Assembly appoint an individual to head up or take on the position of Chief Electoral Office in our Province, and that individual, by the name of Paul Reynolds, has already declared quite openly in newspaper articles that I have here, in a written letter that was communicated to my colleague, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, that he indeed has served for a number of years, most of his volunteer career, with the Progressive Conservative political parties in this Province, both federally and provincially. Not only serving in terms of being involved in an election campaign, but serving in high offices of the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, even serving as a co-chair to a campaign at the time the hon. Member for Lewisporte was running in the Province, Mr. Speaker, and having served on high positions in the Conservative Executive of Newfoundland and Labrador, the actual Progressive Conservative Party of this Province, served in the higher offices of that particular organization. By his own declaration, and by his own response, he has already outlined to us that he has been involved with the Progressive Conservative Party in this Province for a number of years, in various capacities and various roles.

Even that, Mr. Speaker, I could probably overlook to a certain degree if I had some kind of knowledge of the individual outside of what is provided to me on a piece of paper, but I have not known the man, I have not met the man, I have not worked with the individual; so, other than what I see, which is a list of partisan responsibilities and duties performed on a volunteer basis for the Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, I have very little else to go on.

Mr. Speaker, I could probably overlook some of those things if not for the fact that the day on which the member was supposed to be appointed, or declared as going to be appointed, to the position of Chief Electoral Officer in this Province, one of the most non–partisan, most independent positions of office that you can hold in Newfoundland and Labrador, on the day that individual was acknowledged to be appointed and given the nod to take over that position, he still held a position on the Progressive Conservative Association for Virginia Waters. Now, I have a serious problem with that part of it alone, the fact that the government and the members opposite, Mr. Speaker, could impose upon this Legislature a name of an individual who still held an office within the Progressive Conservative Association of this Province, and not only held that office, Mr. Speaker, but was very active in holding that office and, as quoted in the paper, was very proud of his Conservative roots in Newfoundland and Labrador, and very proud to be a Progressive Conservative and to hold that position.

There is some fundamentally wrong, I say to the members opposite, with that particular situation. The fact, Mr. Speaker, that they did not even see fit to ask the member they were going to appoint to step down from the political offices that he held, in advance of announcing his appointment, goes to show, Mr. Speaker, how entrenched this individual is in the Progressive Conservative Party of this Province. It just goes to show, Mr. Speaker. In my mind, that is fundamentally wrong to have made that appointment while he was still holding a position.

Mr. Speaker, it was not until the issue was raised in the media, in the newspapers, a day later, late in the afternoon on Tuesday, the following day, that Mr. Reynolds actually indicated that he would indeed resign as soon as he had time to do so. There is something wrong with that, because that should have been done well in advance of this individual's name being put forward by the Premier for appointment.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time there has been a person of political affiliation appointed to this position. There was an individual appointed in May of 2006 by the name of Charles Furey, who was a previous member of this Legislature and a member of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador. At the time of Mr. Furey's appointment, I would like to remind members, he was out of political office and non-affiliated with any political party for almost three years leading up to that appointment. He did not hold any office within the Liberal Party. In fact, when you talk about parking politics at the door, if you go back and listen to Mr. Furey's commentary on CBC radio and television in the three years leading up to his appointment, you would think he parked his politics at this door the day he walked out of here, because he certainly did not have any kudos for the Liberal Party over the three years that he was waiting for his appointment with the Progressive Conservatives as the Chief Electoral Officer of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, even though Mr. Furey had held a position three years prior to his appointment in the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, leading up to his appointment, it was not evident that he still supported that particular party. If you were to listen to his commentary in the public airways, you have thought that, indeed, he did not support the Liberal Party at the time and was quite the opposite.

The other thing you will note is that, at the time of his appointment and three years leading up to it, he did not hold any political office with the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador either, and was not active in any campaigns, provincially or federally, that I was aware of, or involved in any way, unlike Mr. Reynolds, who is being appointed here today, who only resigned after he was announced as being the Chief Electoral Officer for the Province. Only then did he resign from the Progressive Conservative Virginia Waters Association in Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, quite a different situation, I say to hon. members.

Quite a different situation for me on a personal level as well, because over the years I had worked with Chuck Furey and had known him. I had confidence, number one, in his ability to do the job, and I certainly had a level of trust in terms of being able to provide him with private and confidential information as it pertained to me. For that reason I could look at it in a very different light than I can look at this situation, because in this case we are dealing with an individual who I have not known personally, have not had any relationship with in the past, do not even think he donated to my campaigns, Mr. Speaker, from Ultramar Canada. Although I have a whole list of the Conservative members campaigns that he did donate to. I do not remember getting a cheque from him. If I did, I would have made a point to meet him, I say to hon. members.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very different level in terms of which I have to vote today because I am voting, not only on the information that I have - I can only vote on the information that I have in front of me. I have no personal relationship with the individual upon which to draw on, in terms of making a decision that would be otherwise. I am not questioning whether Mr. Reynolds has the qualifications to do this job. I am not questioning his integrity as an individual, but, Mr. Speaker, what I am questioning is the level of independence that he can bring to the position and I am also questioning the fact as to whether non-partisan politics can be left out of the office of the Chief Electoral Office while he is at the helm.

Mr. Speaker, if this resolution passes in the House of Assembly today I guess I will find out as time goes on whether the individual: one, is performing to the expectation that they should in that office and, number two, whether they can perform on a non-partisan basis. I guess I will get an opportunity to find that out as time goes on.

As it is now, Mr. Speaker, that is my perspective and I guess that is the way I will probably vote on this resolution today. I can only say that any time there is an office of this nature, one of the highest offices that you can hold in this Province as it relates to dealing with members of the Newfoundland and Labrador Legislature, and any person who occupies this office, Mr. Speaker, not only must they park their politics at the door but they must be perceived as being non-partisan right from the beginning. When a person comes into that job still holding a position on an executive of a PC Party organization, in my mind, Mr. Speaker, the issue of non-partisan has just been answered. I think that is unfortunate. It is unfortunate but that is the reality and that is the facts as they have been presented to us today.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to conclude my comments, because unlike the debate we had here on May 15, 2006, when members opposite would not stand up to say what their views were on the appointment of Mr. Furey, but rather sit in their seats with their stiff backs and said nothing but fell in-line for the vote behind the Premier one by one; unlike that, Mr. Speaker, today these individuals are at least standing up, but they are standing up for one of their great supporters in the PC Party, someone who has been a member of their executive and walked the campaign floors with them. So, it is a little bit different, this situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to conclude my comments because the Member for Mount Pearl is getting roiled up over there now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: I am just about finished.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources is over there yelling across the floor. She must want to get up and participate in the debate.

So, I will conclude my comments now because it is getting late and I want her to have an opportunity now to stand on her feet and tell the people in the Province the facts as she sees it, because she certainly has a lot of opinions on what I am saying here this afternoon. So, I will look forward to hear what she has to say.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I will conclude my comments.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure today to stand and support the motion that has been put forward, that Mr. Paul Reynolds be appointed as the Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Members' Interests.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes, if I could, and explain why I believe Mr. Reynolds is a very capable and competent person for that position and why I feel he should be allowed to and should be able to hold the office.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know Mr. Reynolds on a personal level. I have met him. My colleague from Kilbride indicated earlier that he knew him through political circles, and that is sort of how I got to know Mr. Reynolds. I knew him as a business person. I knew that he was involved here in our community on a business level and I certainly knew him as well in terms of being a community person. So, he has a lot of involvement in the community. He has professional involvement, work related involvement and, apparently, for some reason, they believe that part of his community involvement, which happened to be supporting a particular political party, somehow disenfranchises him or should somehow disqualify him for this position.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I take an opposite view. I stood here about a year ago and supported a former Cabinet minister for the Liberal government for this position because I believed he had the qualities, the attributes, to do the job and do it well. In his eleven or twelve months in that position I think he showed us that he could do it. A very busy time, six or seven by-elections, and looking after the interests of the members here. A very busy time for that office. A period of transition. A period of numerous by-elections, and he did it well. I respect the job that he did. We gave him an opportunity to prove to us that he could do that job, and he did it and did it well.

Mr. Reynolds is a person who I believe has similar characteristics and similar attributes. I look at him for the skill set that he has. I look at him for the qualifications that he brings to the job. I look at him for the knowledge that he has. I look at his reputation. I speak to people in the community every day. I have spoken to people for many, many years in this community and Mr. Reynolds's name and Mr. Reynolds's character and Mr. Reynolds's reputation have always come up. It has never come up as being a partisan person, it has never come up as being a political person, any more than it does about his religion. I do not know what religion the man is, and I do not care. It does not matter. What matters is that we get the best person possible to fulfill this job.

Some people have indicated that there is a tradition, that we should go with somebody who works their way up through the public service. There is nothing wrong with that, I do not have any difficulty with that, but we do not need to be bound by tradition. There have been many traditions that we had in our society that have been changed, that have been broken, that have been evolved, that we have grown out of. I see nothing wrong with us making a new tradition, or changing the old tradition, whatever way you want to look at it, by appointing somebody from outside the public service. There is nothing wrong with that. The gentleman has the skill set, he has the knowledge, he has the qualifications, and more importantly, I believe, he has the respect of the people of this community.

I have talked to many people since Mr. Reynolds's name has come forward in our community, of all political stripes, who have indicated to me that they feel he will be a very good, a very fair, a very reputable Commissioner of Members' Interests. I see nothing wrong with supporting that.

We look around in our society, Mr. Speaker, and there are many leaders in our society holding positions. The Government House Leader alluded in his opening remarks to some members of our judiciary who are political people. Do we feel that because they were political people they are not going to do their jobs as judges? Do we feel that they are going to somehow use their past political involvement to colour, to taint the decisions that they make? No, we do not. We trust and respect those people to make the decisions that they need to make that they know are the right decisions, based upon the case law that is brought before them. Mr. Reynolds, I have no doubt, will do the same.

As I indicated, his political stripe was a matter of community involvement. I commend the man. I pat him on the back for taking on the initiative to try and get out there and put forward the views. That is what democracy is all about. We need people of the Liberal Party stripe. We need people of the Progressive Conservative stripe. We need people like my colleague from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and all of her supporters. I am happy that they have, as I do, people who believe in the causes that I support. That is what makes us the society that we are. That is what makes us distinct. That is what makes us different from one another. I respect the differences across the House. I respect the individuals who bring forward those differences.

Mr. Reynolds should not be - he should not be! - penalized for bringing forward that kind of commitment to our community. He should be applauded. I applaud you, sir. I applaud you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: I am glad that you did it. I am glad that you took the time to do it. I am glad that you made the commitment to your community to do it, as we did all of the other people who stood last year in the House and supported somebody who happened to have a different political stripe, for whatever difference that makes. I do not understand why people are so wrapped up in that. It is the best skill set that we can get for the job. We believe we found that best skill set. We look at the history of the man, we talk to people who know the man, and they indicate to us that they feel he is a very, very honourable and a very competent person to place into that position, and I think we should do it.

My colleague from Kilbride indicated earlier that Mr. Reynolds was a former Mayor of Wedgewood Park, and he was and he graduated, if I could use the term, graduated from that position into a position of counsellor in the City of St. John's. When I went to run for municipal office myself, back in the early 1990s, I will say to you that I looked at people like Mr. Reynolds, I looked at people like Councillor Duff who was there, Councillor Wendy Williams who was there, and there were a bunch of others who were there, Bruce Tilley I believe was there at the time, the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor. Those were people who I looked to and I said: Am I able to hold a position like that. Do I think I can go and do the kind of job that those people do? I looked upon him as a person who was a leader in the community. I did not look upon him as being a Conservative, a Progressive Conservative. I did not look upon him as being the Liberal or Member of the New Democratic Party. He was a leader in our community who was giving of his time, his valuable time to do something for the betterment of our community. It happened to be a political activity. There is nothing wrong with that.

He probably has been involved in sports over the years, my guess would be. He has probably coached, he has probably played, he has probably fundraised, but do we stand and criticize him because he supported the Fieldians instead of the Crusaders? Do we stand and do that kind of thing? No, we do not. We have come a long way from those days. Had we had this appointment maybe forty years ago that might have been something we would talk about, but we don't today, we have advanced beyond that. We recognize that we all have different interests and different things that we want to do. As long as we do them with honour and we do them with dignity and we do them with impartiality and for the betterment of the cause we are serving, people will respect us for that.

He has done that, as have many people over on that side of the House of Assembly. They have done that for the interests they believe in and I commend them for doing that. I am not going to persecute that man or I am not going to deny that man the opportunity to do something that he wants to do, which is going to be for our good and our betterment, because he happened to be involved with a political party at one time in his life. We shouldn't do that. We should be able to rise above that. I think we can, I think we will, and I think, as a society, we are.

I think people who are out there listening to this debate and people who know that Mr. Reynolds is being considered and put forward for this position agree with us on that. I think they support this, because they know the kind of man he is, they know the kind of character he has and they know what he has done. He has a track record, he has history, and it is positive. We are somehow trying to change that track record and that history that he has in our community and make it seem like baggage. Well, it is not baggage, not in my eyes. I think we are fortunate to be able to have an opportunity to have Paul Reynolds take on this position. I think we are very fortunate, as members of the House of Assembly, to have somebody like that provide stewardship over what we do as a Commissioner of Members' Interests. I think we are very fortunate to have somebody of his caliber, and I am very proud today, Madam Speaker, to come forward and support him for that.

I will conclude by saying this, Madam Speaker. We are at a time, I believe, in our society when we need to understand that people can go out and support different political stripes and different points of view and different ideas and different thoughts, and we can do it in a constructive way. If there are reasons why constructively we feel this gentleman should not have that, by all means bring them forward and we will debate those, but I don't believe political stripe is constructive in terms of trying to deny this man the position that we proposed him for. For that reason, I don't believe that argument holds any water.

I am pleased today, Madam Speaker, to support the motion, and when the time comes for the vote I will proudly stand and support Paul Reynolds for this position.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words in this most important debate here, this resolution before the House today seeking to appoint Mr. Reynolds as the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Members' Interests. In fact, we do not get to do this very often in our democratic society so it is indeed very important.

A couple of comments I would make first, there is no urgency in rushing this, by the way, none whatsoever. The Premier has nominated Mr. Reynolds, as is his right to do. Obviously, under the act, I understand, he can put him in an acting position. I would assume that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has done that in view of the fact that I understand Mr. Furey actually left a couple of days ago, or whatever, was finished. There is a process, so we need not be worried that we cannot have Mr. Reynolds in place, at least on an acting capacity, until the resolution goes through the House. There is no issue there.

I was taken aback, quite frankly - I don't mind saying - I was taken aback when I heard Mr. Reynolds' name first, not because I know Mr. Reynolds, which I do not. I only met him personally, face to face, today for the first time. I was surprised because the comments in the media - and I am sure most people would not disagree - were: What are you going to do, Premier? When are you going to appoint someone? Would you consider bringing back Mr. Green, who was the former CEO, until such time as the election got over? Because the election was so imminent.

Based on the Premier's comments that, yeah, I would have no problem with doing that - that was what he said. That was, I believe, on a Thursday or Friday, so when I heard on the following Monday that Mr. Reynolds was nominated, I was surprised. I think that is a fairly normal reaction, given that the Premier said: Yeah, I might not have a problem with Mr. Green. Mr. Green was in the public saying: I wouldn't have any problem doing it, but I haven't been contacted.

The name, the first time I heard it, yes, it was a surprise. I met with Mr. Reynolds this morning. I wrote him a letter, actually. I am sure everybody probably got a copy of it, or you should. I wrote a letter on behalf of the Liberal Opposition, the caucus of the Liberal Party, once his appointment was made known, and said there have been concerns raised in the media and within the caucus as to your political affiliation and whether that might make a difference or not, basically, and would you mind telling us what your political affiliations have been with respect to the Conservative Party in the past?

I sent that off, had it hand-delivered to Mr. Reynolds. I did not think that was unfair. I asked the man up front: You are nominated - we want to speak to this in the House some time - can you tell us?

Mr. Reynolds, I had not heard from him up until two nights ago, so I called him again and said: The Government House Leader advises me that this thing is going to be discussed on Thursday. I am wondering if you are going to reply to the letter. He had not given it to me at that time, and I do not believe it was drafted at that time, based upon his comments to me. He said, well, yes, he would probably get something to me. I said: Thank you, I appreciate that.

Quite frankly, folks, if we wrote the letter, and I wrote it to him as the representative of the Liberal Opposition caucus and as an Officer of this House, Opposition House Leader, if he had not responded - and I told him this - I told him: If I go into the House to debate this thing on Thursday and you have not had the courtesy to respond to the letter, that, in and of itself, I think, would be an issue.

Anyway, he did. He came in this morning, in fact, to my office here in the Confederation Building and asked if he could meet with me, which we did, the first time I met him. I find out, from talking to him, I apparently was introduced to him some years ago at a hockey game here in St. John's, with a mutual friend, Nigel Facey, but I did not recall that and I told him so. Not that you are not a memorable person, mind you, but I did not know him; I did not remember that I had. He also tells me his history of where he has worked, including my hometown of Port aux Basques, and we have some people who turn out to be mutual friends of mine and his who happen to be very good, very solid people whom I have a great deal of respect for.

Let's make this clear, and I said to Mr. Reynolds this morning - and some of the members opposite, when you speak in favour of the appointment, I have no problem with that. It is your absolute democratic right to do that. I said, when I spoke concerning Mr. Furey, God bless democracy. One of the comments I made in that speech: God bless democracy.

Don't for an instant be indignant or feel that, because someone has questioned the appointment of Mr. Reynolds, that it has anything to do with Mr. Reynolds personally. How could I question the integrity of Mr. Paul Reynolds, whom I don't know? I do not know, other than what I am seeing here sitting here in the gallery today and a few comments we had this morning. It would be absolutely unfair and inappropriate for me to say that man should not be appointed. That is just making my opening comments as to how I approached this thing from the start.

I then come to the point of the Government House Leader's comments in his speech today about comments that I made earlier at the time of the appointment of Mr. Chuck Furey, whom I voted for, by the way. I said those words then, and I say them now, and I stand by them. I am a firm believer that you should not disallow somebody to fill a position strictly because of their politics. No more should they be discriminated against because of their colour or their religion. We moved past that many years ago, not only in legislation with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms but I hope in our hearts and our souls many years ago, but that does not take away a person's right to question an appointment. When you do, then automatically we are back into that old trap again of: You should not have opened your mouth. You should not be allowed to ask a question.

Folks, we ought to and we are going to ask those questions. I am going to ask those questions. I do not mind saying, I was in a better position to comment on Chuck Furey than I am Mr. Reynolds. At least I knew something personal about Chuck Furey, again because of political affiliations. He was a member of the Liberal Party. I served in Cabinet with him. He was in a caucus with me. I was in a better position from a personal point of view to comment on Chuck Furey, and I do believe politics are irrelevant, don't get me wrong, but it is quite obvious from everything that has been said that politics is not only an issue with the Liberal Party. This issue of the appointment of Mr. Reynolds has been raised nationally, Globe and Mail stories, whether it is appropriate. There was an article in The Telegram. Not an article, I believe actually it was the editorial of The Telegram which questioned whether this was appropriate or not. This is not a Liberal Opposition or an NDP-driven thing. People have a right to question it, and it is being done. I do not remember seeing any of those articles back when Chuck Furey was appointed. Maybe it was because you had a case of a Conservative government appointing a Liberal, so you would not ask those questions. In fact, you might look at it, if that was your taint that you figured that was crazy to do that, you would have been saying, well, Premier Williams must be nuts appointing Chuck Furey, a Liberal. That is why you never had the context of what is happening here. There are quite a few differences.

I notice the government, by the way - and that is politicizing the very issue. The Government House Leader got up and cited what I said in the Chuck Furey case as if in some way or other I was not entitled to have a different opinion with respect to Mr. Reynolds. I said myself, in my comments when Chuck Furey got appointed, I would be a hypocrite to say that he could not be appointed simply because of politics; but, does that take away my right to examine every given resolution on its own merits? I think not.

I agree with the Member for St. John's Centre, I guess it is, who just made the comment about we cannot be bound by tradition. I have no problem with that, absolutely. I have no problem that precedent need bind our hands and keep us forever and a day from making what decisions are right. In fact, if you are going to cite me and what I said, tell the full story. Tell it all. Don't pick out little quips about what I said in my speech. I also said in the same speech: I think I would be a bit of a hypocrite if I stood up today and said, because you were a politician you are going to rule yourself out of any consideration in the future for anything that might require you to be impartial. Because that word impartial is going to come back in the course of these discussions we are going to have here about the appointment of Mr. Reynolds.

I also said in the same speech: I do not get hamstrung by precedent, necessarily to the point where you stymie yourself from ever looking at any other options. It is funny, I get cited as a great authority and I should do this and I should do that when people see it as being in favour of something you want to do. That is politicizing the appointment of Paul Reynolds and you should not be doing it. We will make our comments about Paul Reynolds based on the merits, and I do have some concerns about the appointment of Paul Reynolds. I seriously do. Not because of the individual, but I will tell you why I have the concerns. It is a combination of events. If you do not know a person - you people over on the government side, for example, some of you have had very close, personal working relationships with Mr. Reynolds. You can attest to his character as integrity. I can't. I don't know the man. I can only go on what I have. Maybe this was a misstep on the part of Mr. Reynolds.

One of the things I read, after the nomination was made by the Premier from The Telegram, was a comment that he made. It says: But I think you and the media and all people concerned are familiar with how the Premier in this Province operates. He is a man of the utmost integrity. I think he sees me in a role similar to himself; have high standards in that direction. I have a problem with that. Why would a man who has been appointed and nominated for the position that requires the utmost of integrity and impartiality, in an editorial, or in a comment to the newspaper within hours of being nominated, be comparing himself to the Premier? And if it is okay by the Premier, it is okay by me. I have a problem with that. Now that is one of the reasons that caused me a problem.

The other reason I have a problem is - I got a response from Mr. Reynolds to the letter that I wrote him, as I explained. He wrote back, and the comment in paragraph two of his letter says: My duties as President of PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador ceased in 1984. My involvement with the Virginia Waters association was terminated on April 24, 2007. Now, right away I said, I do believe that the announcement was made by Executive Council as to his nomination on Monday, the twenty-third. It was a holiday, in fact, in the Province. St. George's Day, I do believe. I went back, just to verify it, and sure enough the announcement came out of the Premier's office that this gentleman was nominated on April 23.

In his letter that he sent me dated May 2, he acknowledged that even hours after he had been nominated he was still a member of the PC Association of Virginia Waters. Now, that is a problem, because I would have thought - again, maybe it was a misstep by Mr. Reynolds. Maybe he should have said - because you did not just get the announcement from Executive Council. There had to be discussions from the Premier's office to Mr. Reynolds to decide if he was prepared to take it. You would not go out and say he was appointed or nominated if you had not talked to the man. A bit of common sense dictates that. I would have thought that Mr. Reynolds would have said: Well, thank you very much, Premier. I am going to accept that, but I am a member of the PC Association. What do you think I should do? The Premier would have said: Well, you immediately have to resign that. Even if it is today that you sign your letter you cannot accept the nomination and stay as a member of the PC Association. That is a fact that I did not know about Chuck Furey. That was a difference of facts. That causes a concern because we are talking about perceptions and reality.

I have no doubt that this gentleman - and, by the way, nobody in this room and nobody in this Province need fool themselves about the fact that it is going to happen. Let's not kid ourselves. Mr. Reynolds knows it is going to happen. Everybody here knows it is going to happen because it happens on a vote of the House. Boys, in this case it is the numbers. The government who nominated Mr. Reynolds has the numbers and they are going to put this resolution through, whether it be today, next week, or two weeks times. Let's not kid ourselves. This is not about stopping the appointment of Mr. Reynolds.

Anyway, just so I do not get lost, I have lots more to say. I was hoping, and I am sure the Government House Leader would allow as much time, I would think, on this most important democratic thing for one to state their case. Anyway, I am going to propose an amendment to the appointment of Mr. Reynolds, seconded by the Member for Port de Grave, so that we can have some further discussion on this issue, because I certainly believe one's speaking time should not be left to the whim of members saying I withdraw leave. There is much more to be said and I think it needs to be said.

I propose an amendment, Mr. Speaker. I move that the motion be amended, the resolution be amended, by deleting all the words after the word, that, and substituting the following, therefore Mr. Paul Reynolds be appointed Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Members' Interests after it is verified that he meets the requirements for appointment equivalent to a DRO under section 21 of the Elections Act.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to have a word or two to say on the amendment. I am sure Your Honour is going to take some time to consider it, but I would certainly like to have an opportunity to make a submission before you do.

MR. SPEAKER: Usually we do not have lengthy submissions before the Chair recesses, as the Chair will do, to rule on the amendment. If the Government House Leader has a brief comment, we have done that before, but we should not get into the merits of the amendment, only into the process.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, I am looking for guidance, I guess. For example, if I think the amendment is out of order and I don't say why now, and Your Honour goes out and comes back and says it is in order, you have not had the benefit of what I think. Now, maybe the benefit of what I think is not important, but I would like to have an opportunity to say it.

MR. SPEAKER: I do believe we can reach an agreement. We have had precedents before, without having to stand on a point of order, that if the two House Leaders wish to make submissions then the Chair can hear the submissions, not on the merits of the point of order but to giving advise to the Chair before the Chair would rule on it.

Is there agreement that we will have brief presentations?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess we are both looking for guidance, in a way, in this regard. I wanted to just make the point that we proposed the amendment. The amendment is properly proposed and seconded. I agree with the Government House Leader that if there are no submissions, I guess we both have the possibility that the Chair would rule that it is out of order, for Example, or in order, and the opposite one would not have an opportunity to comment on that. I think that would be unfair to both sides. It shouldn't be ruled in order without the Government House Leader having an opportunity to speak to it being out of order and vise versa.

Now, how we accomplish that, I guess, is another issue. We can make the presentations before you go see if it is in order, or do you want to go and give us your preliminary view on whether it is in order or not and then we have our arguments. I am prepared to abide by whatever you suggest.

MR. SPEAKER: There have been some precedents in the House whereby the Chair always seeks consultation as much as possible, so perhaps we could have some brief comments from both House Leaders. We could have the benefit of that, and then the House officers and myself would then go and make the considerations.

The Chair recognizes the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

I will be very brief in my presentation because I have not obviously had an opportunity to see the amendment before it was presented here by my colleague on the opposite side, so I have had no opportunity to do any research as to the appropriateness of the amendment in itself. However, as Government House Leader, and on the anticipation that the Opposition may want to propose an amendment, obviously I gave some thought to that in preparing for debate on this resolution.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the resolution before the House cannot be easily amended. You can only propose an amendment that is a reasoned amendment. You can only propose an amendment that might clarify or perhaps expand on the resolution itself. The amendment that has been proposed by the Leader of the Opposition seeks to have verified that the candidate, as proposed by the resolution for appointment, meets the qualifications outlined in the act.

Mr. Speaker, there does not have to be an amendment for that to happen. If there is a view from somebody in the House that the candidate does not meet particular qualifications, then that can be pointed out in debate. We submit -

MR. PARSONS: And voted down.

MR. RIDEOUT: And voted down.

We submit that the candidate, as proposed in this resolution, does, in fact, meet the requirements and would vote, accordingly, in supporting the resolution. If somebody else feels differently, then that is a different matter, and I respect that.

I would respectfully submit to Your Honour that this resolution is out of order, that it is not permitted under the rules, and therefore cannot be entertained. I would ask Your Honour to give some thought to that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader making a submission on the appropriateness of the amendment.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am under the understanding that there is no limit on what time I have to make my submission?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let's go back to some of the preliminaries here, I guess, of the rules and regulations we live within in our parliamentary system when it comes to amendments. There are some authorities I would like to refer to. This is just the basics of it. In Beauchesne's, for example, Parliamentary Rules & Forms, the 6th Edition, which is often referred to in many democracies as one of the leading authorities, this says - and I make these comments to the Government House Leader in view of what the purpose of an amendment is and whether you can or you cannot make an amendment. That is what we are here deciding, number one, and, number two, is it in order.

Beauchesne says quite clearly on page 175 of that 6th Edition: §567. "The object of an amendment may be either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability or to present to the House a different proposition as an alternative to the original question."

We are not proposing this amendment as an alternative, but we certainly do fall within the comment about increasing its acceptability. I made my comments, even when I talked to the principal motion here today, about circumstances that existed which have raised concerns about the appointment, vis-B-vis comments being made by Mr. Reynolds in the media and comments that Mr. Reynolds made in a letter to me about being a member of the association even after the nomination. What we are trying to do here is to make the resolution that the government has put forward more acceptable. We certainly fall under that definition of what this amendment is all about. We want to verify that he meets certain criteria. That certainly accepts his acceptability.

Also, §568. "It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed." I think that is pretty straightforward. Anyone who would suggest that the resolution, or the amendment that we put forward, is not relevant to the principal motion here in this House today, I think we have missed the boat. There doesn't seem to be much question about that one.

"Every amendment proposed to be made, either to a question or to a proposed amendment, should be so framed that, if agreed to by the House, the question or amendment as amended would be intelligible and consistent with itself." I do not think there is too much thought required to see that amendment is pretty consistent. It is pretty intelligible that we are just asking for a verification of the individual.

It also says: §569. "(1) A motion may be amended..." that is getting into the technical piece "...by: (a) leaving out certain words; (b) leaving out certain words in order to insert other words; (c) inserting or adding other words." That is pretty clear, that we have complied with it technically, as to it being in writing and what we have done here. We have asked to insert certain other words.

It also goes on to say, " When an amendment is irregular in one particular, the whole of it is not admissible and must be ruled out of order." We have no problem with that either. I think, when it comes to Beauchesne as to what an amendment is and when it is acceptable, on the face of it this is a valid amendment that we have proposed here. It meets the written piece. It meets the relevancy piece. It is properly, technically drafted. I see no reason why this amendment would be out of order based on the Beauchesne authority. That is a Canadian authority, by the way, Beauchesne, because as I understand it, what we do in a parliamentary perspective is we look for our own rules first of all, our own precedents. We also look, then, to other provinces or jurisdictions within our own country and the national capital, the House of Commons, for direction. Then if we need to we go elsewhere, mother England sometimes, to look for precedents.

I have looked at our Standing Orders. There is certainly nothing in our Standing Orders which rules this out of order, nothing whatsoever. I am going to come back to the piece about our own precedent because there are precedents where these types of amendments have been ruled in order and I am going to come back to these. There is a precedent here in the Province in this Legislature and there is a precedent from the House of Commons where this type of amendment had been ruled proper.

Before I get to those I cite from Marleau and Monpetit which the Speaker of this House at the commencement of this forty-fifth session of the House of Assembly, I do believe, said that this is the one he would be principally referring to as his authority to govern the procedure in this House. Not that our friend Mr. Beauchesne is any less reliable. I think it is a technical preference by the Speaker as to what he prefers, but it does not take away from the authorities of Mr. Beauchesne whatsoever. It is just, I guess, the text that the Speaker prefers to read and refer to, maybe for ease of reference or whatever. But I refer as well, this is a Canadian authority, to Marleau and Monpetit, page 452. They talk about amendments there. It says, "A motion in amendment arises out of debate and is proposed either to modify the original motion in order to make it more acceptable to the House or to present a different proposition as an alternative to the original." Pretty well what Mr. Beauchesne said. This has been proposed here to make it more acceptable to the House.

"It requires no notice..." - no notice was required, but I did tell the Government House Leader before I made it that we were going to be making an amendment - "...and is submitted in writing to the Chair." Which we did, after I made it. "The provision that a motion be in writing ensures that, if the motion is in order..." - which is the whole point here, is it in order or not? "...it is proposed to the House in the exact terms of the mover." So it does not end up with any questions of me verbally proposing one thing and then getting off track and not knowing what I said. We all know what we are here to debate then, if it is ruled to be in order.

"After the amendment has been moved, seconded..." - which was done by the Member for Port de Grave - "...and examined as to its procedural acceptability..." - and that is where we are headed to with the Speaker - "...the Chair submits it to the House. Debate on the main motion is set aside and the amendment is debated until it has been decided, whereupon debate resumes on the main motion and other amendments may be proposed. Just as the text of a main motion may be amended, an amendment may itself be amended."

So, it is pretty straight forwarded. When it comes to both Canadian authorities, this is certainly in order here. I have not seen anything here to rule what we just put forward as an amendment to be out of order. It is pretty basic. Now, unless somebody wants to go find a reason why it is not in order.

I am going to say this, too, because it should be part of Hansard. There has been nothing untoward here, or elements of surprise brought forward in the presentation of this amendment. I had directed the staff of our office and they have been, for several days, in communication with the Officers of the House, and I understand the Speaker got involved in this today as well with amendments. So, it is not a surprise thing. This is being done for the purpose of crafting an amendment that would be acceptable. Now I do not know if the membership of the House, the Table Officers, or the Speaker - we did not get any direction as to what was acceptable, even though we asked. We were told what was not acceptable, such as referred to by the Government House Leader, a reason an amendment would not apply, you cannot make an amendment that would send this to a committee of the House and so on. We were told those things. We had precious little assistance as to what was acceptable. Now I do not think that was anything wrong, we did not get it properly drafted. It is not the job of the Table Officers to do our work either. All we can do is give it to them and they can tell us if it is right or not.

I just want it said for the record, that this is not something off the cuff, that we did not try to get done properly and get some direction on. So far, we do not have any direction, despite repeated attempts and a number of draft amendments being put to the table. So that is what brings us to this position. Normally, you would be in a situation where you would have agreed, there is an amendment, you would have gotten your direction and you table it and everything is in order and away you go. There are two Canadian authorities which outline what the basics of an amendment are. I see nothing there, as I say, whatsoever, to indicate that this amendment is not in order.

Now, let's get a bit more specific looking for precedents - oh, by the way, before I move on, in terms of what is acceptable. There is another authority on parliamentary procedures, just in case the Canadian ones are not good enough, which I cited, Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice, British authority - mother England herself. It talks about amendments again. I refer to page 397, in particular, of Erskine May: As indicated earlier on page 382, an amendment is a subsidiary motion moved in the course of debate upon another motion, which interposes a new cycle of debate and decision between the proposal and decision of the main motion and the question. In its turn, the debate on an amendment may be similarly intercepted by the proposal of and decision upon a further subsidiary amendment, amendment to an amendment, or it may be superseded by a dilatory motion. Amendments may be tabled as soon as the relevant motion has been tabled. It is not necessary to wait until the motion is published. They go on talking about, again, the basics of an amendment.

Nowhere in Erskine May does it say what we propose there is not proper. Nowhere in Beauchesne does it say what we propose there is not acceptable. Nowhere in Marleau and Montpetit does it say what we propose there is unacceptable. So, we have no written authorities that would rule this out of order. There is nothing in our Standing Orders which would rule this out of order. That leaves us with: Do we have any precedents where we dealt with this type of thing before? Which brings us to the past practice piece, and there are a couple of those. I referred to one being done in the House of Commons some years ago. I have it here. I will table it as soon as I am finished presenting it. This was done in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister at that time, the Right Honourable Jean Chretien, when they were dealing with the Clarity Act, made a motion to introduce the Clarity Act. It is the same thing here, sort of thing. It was a resolution as opposed to a piece of legislation, type of thing. It was an actual act as well, besides that. It was proposed, it was seconded and there was an amendment put forward in the House of Commons with respect to that resolution brought forward by the Prime Minister. It is the same thing we did here, suggesting that further words be added, some be deleted and some be inserted. That amendment proposed at that time, the Clarity Act, was ruled to be in order in the federal Parliament.

We also have an amendment from our own precedent right here in this very House, with this very Speaker, the same Speaker. We were dealing at that time with the Atlantic Accord resolution. The Premier had put the resolution forward in the House dealing with the Atlantic Accord. I will read it for the record, just so there is no confusion here.

The Premier had brought forward a resolution. "WHEREAS the main purpose of the Atlantic Accord for Newfoundland and Labrador, according to paragraph 2(c), is to become the principal beneficiary of the oil and gas resources off its shores;

AND WHEREAS that condition has not been met;

BE IT RESOLVED that this Honourable House call upon the Government of Canada to acknowledge and honour its obligation under the Atlantic Accord to ensure Newfoundland and Labrador is the principal beneficiary of the oil and gas resources off its shores;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Honourable House call upon the Government of Canada specifically to allow Newfoundland and Labrador to receive 100 per cent of the provincial revenues from oil and gas off its shores."

That was the principal motion that was made at that time by the Premier. This member, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, proposed an amendment at that time. The date was March 31, 2004, page 408 of Hansard. The motion that this member made at that time - the Leader of the Opposition actually made it, seconded by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, put forward a motion. The motion reads: Mr. Speaker, I move the following amendment to the motion before the House. That it be added to the end of the motion - the same as we are doing here, the following - including the transfer to the Province of the 8.5 per cent share in Hibernia now owned by the federal government.

"The Speaker has conferred with the Table Officers..." - and I realize we had a former Clerk; it is not the current Clerk who was the Table Officer at that time, at least not the Clerk. "The Speaker has conferred with the Table Officers and rules that this amendment is in order."

Now, I do not know in terms of precedent how much more on all fours we need to be. We had a principal resolution. It was not a legislative piece of resolution like we normally have amendments done. It came from the Premier. It certainly dealt with an important issue, the Atlantic Accord, and we put forward an amendment that does exactly the same thing we are doing here now; we are adding words to the amendment.

You want to get into content in terms of whether or not the amendment changes the substantive motion and might try to get it disavowed on those grounds? All you need to do is look at this resolution here, this precedent here. You cannot possibly do it on those grounds, because what this did here was it added further to the resolution, again for acceptability purposes. It added the piece about the 8.5 per cent that the Government of Canada owned in the Hibernia project.

Now, to some people this might seem kind of legalistic and everything else, but I have to speak this way in this case because we are into one of those ticklish issues where, is it or is it not a proper amendment? I have great concerns, not that we are going to get a ruling one way or the other here, but I am very concerned when a government who has proposed a resolution is objecting to an amendment that might make that resolution more acceptable and has absolutely nothing to do with speaking in favour or against this gentleman down here on a personal level, none whatsoever. In fact, it creates a circumstance whereby this gentleman can prove to us and the whole world that he ought to have the job. I do not understand the logic of a government that would oppose that kind of amendment. I do not understand it.

I am taken aback that the government would have an issue with such an amendment. We are proposing an amendment that allows this individual, whom I already said, rightly or wrongly, might have made a couple of missteps, and I do not get hung up over that stuff either. I do not have a big deal with that, but it has been done. It happened. We cannot take it back. Why would a government be opposed to an opportunity to do that?

We are not asking that this gentleman, under this amendment, be vetted by the Opposition. Lo and behold, should he be; he should not be. He should not be vetted by us. We only have a right to stand up here in the House and speak to whether or not we think he is a good guy and should get the position. We should not be the sole arbitrators of his vetting, but it allows a process that he should at least, if this amendment goes through, comply with the basic rules of acceptability. If he cannot comply with the guidelines and rules and regulations that are set up for a DRO under the Elections Act, how is he ever going to be acceptable as the chief guy? It is common sense.

I am making this case very strenuously because, as I say, you put all these factors together. We have not been given one reason by anybody, the Table Officers, why what we have done is not proper. We certainly have no precedent from a written authority in Canada or Great Britain as to why this is not acceptable, and we have precedents in two levels of government, the federal government in Canada and our own very own Legislature, with this Speaker, on the Atlantic Accord issue, which puts this type of an amendment in order.

Now, if I were in a courtroom making that argument to a judge, I would have been told to sit down by now. The Government House Leader is aware of that.

MR. RIDEOUT: I am sorry, I missed that.

MR. PARSONS: I say again, if I were in a courtroom and I were making these arguments to a judge in a courtroom as to whether or not something was acceptable or not, a piece of evidence should get in or be kept out, the judge would have told me by now to sit down; we do not need to hear from you any further.

They do that when it is obvious that something is obvious. If it is obvious that an amendment is right, if it is obvious that something should happen, the judge does not waste your time. He says: Sit down, Mr. Parsons, I don't need to hear from you any further.

That is how obvious this is. By the way, that is why I made my comments earlier about there being nothing timely or a need to be rushed about this appointment - nothing - because Mr. Reynolds can be appointed. We can have this debate on the table, ruled in order, speak to this amendment, and continue the debate on Mr. Reynolds, come to the vote on the amendment, come to the vote on the resolution -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Given the nature of the hour and the fact that we will need to recess the House, I am wondering if we could have the hon. member conclude his comments, so we can get some conclusions and directions.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not cutting off the hon. member here, he can finish up his thoughts, I just want to say that I certainly have been listening, very attentively, to what he has had to say and I would like to have another opportunity to add a word to that when he is finished.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader, who is going to make some concluding commentary.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not feel pressured at all when you tell me to make concluding commentary. I realize you said that there was no limit, but I realize they have an hour. This is certainly a case, I believe, where the Government House Leader and this side of the House will be in agreement, that whatever time is necessary to do a proper debate on it we would, if it is okay by the Chair.

I certainly agree, concur, that the Government House Leader ought to have whatever amount of time is necessary to respond to any comments that I have made here today. Likewise, if he makes commentary, and again that is the whole purpose of this exercise, if he makes commentary in response to mine, that I deem it necessary to speak again, I would like to opportunity to speak again. That is the whole purpose of the debate here.

Now, in the interests of everybody here, because we are running short of time and because we did not give any notice of this, if the Government House Leader prefers that we put it over to Monday and continue it, that is fine by myself as well. I have no problem with that, we can resume on Monday. Maybe that is satisfactory to everybody.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would like to have some guidance. It is now 5:26 p.m. and the Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yes, it is 5:26 p.m. I want to make it abundantly clear the government is in no rush on this matter. We can take whatever time is necessary for us to make our argument and the Opposition to make a further argument, and for Your Honour to make, as I know he will, a reasoned judgement and an exceptional ruling, as always. In view of the arguments made by the Opposition House Leader, I certainly do reserve my right to speak to that matter when we next call this debate.

I am going to propose, therefore, that this House adjourn, and the House on it rising, do now adjourn until Monday, at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair understands that there will be further presentation when the House next calls this matter on the Orders of the Day.

In that regard, then, the Chair now puts the question: All of those in favour of the motion to adjourn until Monday at 1:30 of the clock, aye?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

The motion is carried.

This House now stands adjourned until Monday at 1:30 p.m.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 1:30 p.m.